LIBRARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

No.  Oase,^  ■  PJ««Wi        ./......t... 


1 S:-*^----™^ 


.■W  #1....  ....Jill  *»■■■■■■■ 


F 


BV    670     .H61 

An    apology    for    apostolic 
order    and   its    advocates 


AH 

APOLOGY 

FOR 


APOSTOLIC  ORDER 


AND    ITS 


ADVOCATES. 

IN   A   SERIES  OF   LETTERS, 


ADDRESSED 


TO  THE  REV.  JOHN  M.  MASON,  D.  D. 


THE  REV.  JOHN  HENRY  HOBART, 

AN  ASSISTANT  MINISTER  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH- 


Judge  righteous  judgment. 

John  viii.  34. 


SECOND  EDITION. 
WITH  NOTES  AND  AN  INDEX. 


NEW-YORK: 

STANFORD  &  SWORDS,  139  BROADWAY. 

PHILADELPHIA: 

GEO.  S.  APPLETON,  148  CHESNUT  ST. 

MDCCCXLIV. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  Year  1844, 

By  STANFORD  &  SWORDS, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District 

of  New- York. 


STEREOTYPED  BY  VINCENT  L.  DILL, 
No.  128  Fulton  Street,  New- York. 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 

No  words  are  here  needed  to  justify  the  republica- 
tion of  a  book,  so  vahiable  in  itself,  so  urgently  de- 
manded by  the  exigences  of  the  time,  as  the  ^'Apolo- 
gy "  for  the  one  Catholic  Church,  from  the  able  pen 
of  the  late  Bishop  of  New-York,  which  first  appeared 
in  1807.  The  republication  has  been  delayed  in  the 
hope  that  some  skilful  hand  might  be  found  to  divest 
it  somewhat  of  its  personalities  without  diminishing  its 
force  ;  a  task,  which,  upon  examination,  has  proved 
impracticable.  The  circumstance,  however,  is  hardly 
to  be  regretted,  as  the  "strictures  and  denunciations" 
which  called  forth  this  triumphant  defence  of  the  truth, 
have  recently  been  given  to  the  public,  in  all  the 
offensiveness  of  their  original  forms.  No  alteration, 
therefore,  has  been  made  in  this  second  edition  of  the 
"Apology;"  and  no  other  addition  than  a  few  notes 
and  an  index  by  the  Editor. 

Kew-York,  JYov.  8th.  1843.  L.  S.  I. 


PREFACE. 

The  writer  of  the  following-  letters  and  his  opinions 
having  been  pointedly  and  violently  assailed  in  the 
Christian's  Magazine,  he  is  reluctantly  compelled  to 
obtrude  himself  upon  the  public  attention.  He  thinks 
he  has  a  particular  claim  upon  all  those  who  have 
taken  up  unfavourable  views  of  those  opinions  which 
that  Magazine  assails,  for  a  candid  perusal  of  his  de- 
fence. In  that  work  he  has  been  solemnly  arraigned 
^^at  the  bar  of  public  criticism."  The  readers  of  that 
publication  cannot,  therefore,  he  conceives,  consist- 
ently with  their  regard  to  justice,  their  love  of  truth, 
or  the  claims  of  duty,  refuse  to  hear  himSn  his  defence. 
It  is  the  first  dictate  of  justice,  to  give  an  accused  per- 
son a  patient  and  candid  hearing  before  judgment  is 
passed  on  him.  The  impartial  pursuit  of  truth  cannot 
be  compatible  with  an  examination  of  only  one  side 
of  a  disputed  question.  And  they  who  will  place 
themselves  for  a  moment  in  the  situation  of  the  indi- 
vidual whom  that  Magazine  denounces  as  holding 
opinions  of  ^'deep-toned  horror,"  will  at  once  feel  it 
a  sacred  duty  to  admit  him  to  repel  the  accusation. 
They  are  required  so  to  do  by  that  law  of  supreme  ob- 
ligation, '^  Do  unto  others  as  ye  would  that  they  should 
do  unto  you." 

The  writer  of  these  letters  disclaims  from  the  heart 
all  feelings  of  hostility  to  the  many  pious  and  respect- 
able individuals,  some  of  whose  religious  principles 
may  differ  from  his  own.  Difference  of  opinion  on 
important  religious  topics  ought  not  to  break  the  ties 


VI  PREFACE. 

of  harmony  between  children  of  the  same  common 
Parent,  and  subjects  of  the  grace  df  the  same  Redeem- 
er. On  political  questions  men  divide,  who  on  other 
occasions  meet  on  terms  of  friendly  intercourse.  And 
surely  no  Christian  ought  to  esteem  his  brother  his 
enemy  because  he  ''  tells  him  the  truth." 

He  is  doubtful  whether  he  ought  to  claim  any  indul- 
gence for  the  imperfections  of  this  performance,  from 
the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  it  was  written. 
It  was  his  wish  to  lay  it  by  for  frequent  and  careful 
revision.  But  the  violence  of  the  assault  upon  him 
seemed  to  require  an  immediate  defence.  He  was, 
therefore,  compelled  to  go  rapidly  on,  amidst  constant 
interruptions,  amidst  the  calls  of  his  usual  professional 
duties,  and  often  under  the  pressure  of  bodily  langour. 
He  candidly  states  these  circumstances,  because  defer- 
ence to  the  public  requires  that  no  immature  or  incor- 
rect production  should,  if  possible,  be  exposed  to  its 
view.  But  he  is  writing  idly.  The  performance  wields 
the  weapon  of  controversy.  He  concludes,  therefore, 
that  it  can  claim  no  quarter.  He  leaves  it  to  its  fate. 
His  chief  solicitude  ought  to  be,  that  its  imperfections 
should  not  injure  the  cause  which  it  advocates. 

JVew-York,  June,  1807. 


LETTER    I, 

Sir, 


The  Christian's  Magazine,  which  the  newspapers  lately- 
announced  to  the  public,  and  the  responsibihty  of  which,  as 
proprietor  and  editor,  you  take  upon  yourself,  I  have  pe- 
rused, and  the  determination  is  instantly  formed  to  address 
you  on  the  subject. 

The  tendency  of  the  system  of  denunciation  which  you 
have  adopted  leaves  me  no  alternative.  This  denunciation 
is  so  injurious  to  my  character,  and  aims  at  the  same  time  so 
deadly  a  blow  at  the  principles  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
that  a  moment's  delay  in  repelling  it  would  be  traitorous  to 
my  sacred  office.  My  soul  must  be  palsied  by  cowardice, 
or  by  apathy  more  criminal  and  disgraceful  than  cowardice, 
if  I  could  witness  my  writings  denounced,  my  reputation  and 
usefulness  fundamentally  assailed,  and  the  principles  of  my 
Church  held  up  to  scorn  and  execration,  without  lifting  the 
honest  and  ardent  voice  of  remonstrance. 

As  editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine,  you  are  responsible 
for  its  contents.  The  editor  of  a  miscellany  may  sometimes 
think  himself  compelled,  by  motives  of  delicacy  or  impar- 
tiality, to  admit  observations  of  which  he  is  not  the  writer, 
and  which  in  sentiment  or  in  language  he  may  deem  liable 
to  censure.  To  even  the  smallest  indulgence  on  this  plea 
you  have  renounced  all  claim.  You  assert,  that  "you  will 
feel  yourself  not  only  at  liberty,  but  under  obligation  to 
make  such  alterations  in  the  pieces  which  may  be  offered  for 
insertion,  as  you  shall  judge  expedient."  But  this  matter  is 
well  understood.  For  the  triumphs  with  which  taste,  deli- 
cacy, and  truth  will  doubtless  crown  the  first  number  of  the 
Christian's  Magazine,  you  have  no  competitor — alone  you 
stand  rexj  magnus  Apollo.     You  intend  to  claim  the  honour 


HOBART'S    APOLOGY 


of  having  made  the  first  breach  in  the  towering  fortress  of 
Episcopacy.  Your  illustrious  compeers  have  only  to  ad- 
vance and  raze  it  to  the  ground  !  All  the  original  produc- 
tions in  the  number  of  the  magazine  before  me,  with  the 
exception  of  the  essay  on  the  visible  Church,  point  with  re- 
sistless evidence  to  you  as  their  author.  And  even  if  I  had 
not  been  long  taught  to  expect  from  your  appalling  arm 
chastisement  for  my  temerity  in  advocating  the  principles  of 
my  Church,  the  style  and  spirit  of  the  review  of  the  Essays  on 
Episcopacy  would  leave  me  at  no  loss  to  whom  to  tender  my 
most  profound  acknowledgments  for  the  very  honourable 
notice  which  that  review  has  condescended  to  bestow  on  me. 

I  behold  and  address  you  only  as  Editor  and  Reviewer. 
"  For  your  personal  character  I  entertain  unfeigned  respect." 
We  have  often  met,  and  I  trust  we  shall  often  meet  again, 
on  terms  of  friendly  intercourse.  "  My  criticisms  are  intend- 
ed to  apply  to  you  solely  as  an  author."  "  Nor  can  I  be  justly 
charged  with  violating  "  my  "  respect"  for  you,  "  though  I 
examine"  your  animadversions  "with  as  little  ceremony  as" 
you  "  have  brought  them  forward."  I  heartily  subscribe  to 
the  noble  maxim  of  the  "  imperial  stoic."  And  in  "aiming 
at  truth,  by  which  no  man  was  ever  injured,"  regardless  of 
the  dictates  of  a  temporising  policy,  or  of  the  fear  or  favour 
of  man,  I  am  swayed  by  the  injunction  of  one  infinitely 
greater  than  this  "  imperial"  philosopher.  "  Whosoever 
loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me"  and  my  truth,  "  is 
not  worthy  of  me." 

Paradoxical  as  it  may  appear,  I  confess  I  am  gratified  at 
the  appearance  of  the  Christian's  Magazine.  Present 
calamity  may  be  measured  by  the  mind.  Its  magnitude  is 
accurately  surveyed.  Its  dreaded  terrors  diminish  by  the 
habit  of  contemplation  ;  and  the  mind,  summoning  resolu- 
tion, proudly  surmounts  them.  But  threatened  calamity  is 
often  clothed  with  a  thousand  "  nameless"  horrors  by  the 
magnifying  and  exaggerating  power  of  a  panic-struck  ima- 
gination.    With  the  apprehension  of  a  portentous  calamity 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  9 

I  have  long  been  tortured.  My  "  Companion  for  the 
Altar,"  as  innocent  in  its  design  as  it  is  in  its  consequences 
to  all  the  sincere  inquirers  after  truth,  had  scarcely  found  its 
way  among  those  to  whom  some  of  its  principles  were 
obnoxious,  before  vengeance  was  threatened.  Prudence, 
however,  which  in  charity  must  certainly  be  imputed  to  that 
mild  and  tender  forbearance  which  knows  not  how  to  pour 
from  its  soft-flowing  tongue  one  harsh,  one  unkind,  one 
criminating  expression,  for  near  a  year  repressed  this  ire. 
But  before  the  expiration  of  a  year  a  "  speck  of  war"  ap- 
peared in  the  horizon.  The  prospectus  of  the  Christian's 
Magazine,  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1805,  threatened  to 
disturb  the  "  relations  of  amity,"  and  to  engage  Episcopa- 
lians and  their  fellow  Christians  in  "  the  unprofitable  contest 
of  trying  who  could  do  one  another  the  most  harm."  The 
opponents  of  Episcopacy,  however,  resolved  to  exhaust 
forbearance  !  The  Christian's  Magazine  was  delayed,  and 
delayed,  and  delayed.  Were  I  uncharitable,  I  would  suspect 
that  an  aversion  to  enter  the  "  bloody  arena,"  on  which 
Episcopacy  had  so  often  laid  prostrate  its  antagonists,  had 
full  as  much  influence  on  this  delay  as  the  spirit  of  forbear- 
ance to  which  I  feel  the  most  cordial  disposition  to  ascribe 
it.  A  hero,  however,  no  less  renowned  than  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Linn,  not  taught  wisdom  by  the  salutary  lessons  which  he 
had  received  some  years  ago  from  the  "  Right  Rev.  Prelate 
of  New-York,"  in  a  theological  contest,  felt  all  the  vigour 
and  ardour  of  his  youthful  days  renewed.  Indignant  at  this 
delay,  and  spurning  the  restraints  of  his  compeers,  he  rush- 
ed forward  to  spread  dismay  among  Episcopalians,  and 
single-handed  cover  them  with  defeat.  In  his  numbers 
styled  "  Miscellanies,"  published  in  the  Albany  Centinel, 
he  attacked  the  principles  of  Episcopalians.  He  was  in- 
stantly met — met,  and  vanquished  by  striplings^  inferior  to 
this  venerable  giant  of  literature  and  theology  in  every  thing 
but  the  goodness  of  their  cause,  and  judgment  to  defend  it. 
Did  these  striplings  or  their  friends  presume  ever  to  triumph, 


10  hobart's  apology 

that,  clothed  with  the  armour  which  scripture  and  antiquity 
furnished  them,  they  had  withstood  the  shock  of  the  cham- 
pion of  Presbytery,  and  laid  low  both  him  and  his  cause  ? 
They  were  instantly  humbled  by  the  declarations, — The 
author  of  Miscellanies  has  been  rash  and  indiscreet — he 
knows  not  the  strength  of  his  own  cause — he  has  never  read 
extensively  on  the  subject — he  did  not  "  take  the  question 
by  the  proper  handle" — But  the  Christian's  Magazine  !  this 
will  retrieve  the  laurels  which  have  been  lost — this  will 
flash  such  transcendent  light,  that  the  cause  of  Episcopacy 
will  not  be  able  for  a  moment  to  bear  up  against  its  over- 
powering effulgence.  Yes,  sir,  my  soul  has  often  startled 
at  the  threat,  that  you  would  rise  in  your  might,  and  pouring 
the  awful  majesty  of  indignant  truth  on  the  rash  and  adven- 
turous advocates  of  Episcopacy,  would  "  chase  them  before 
you  as  the  chaff  before  the  wind."  The  thunder  has  at 
length  shot  from  your  arm.  But — I  yet  survive  !  and, 
astonishing  as  it  may  seem,  I  can  summon  resolution  to 
maintain  my  principles,  and  to  expose  your  denunciations  to 
the  world.  I  thank  you,  sir — you  have  kindly  released  me 
from  all  fear  of  "  the  Christian's  Magazine." 


LETTER    II. 

Sir, 
When  1  understood  that  a  "  Society  of  Gentlemen"  had 
formed  the  resolution  to  expose  the  ''  fallacious  reasonings" 
of  the  assertors  of  Episcopacy,  and  to  defend  Presbytery 
as  the  institution  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  I  could  not 
avoid  cherishing  the  hope  that  a  mild  and  dispassionate 
course  would  be  pursued.  I  could  not  avoid  cherishing  the 
hope  (for  it  was  flattering  to  my  cause  and  to  my  feelings) 
that,  disdaining  a  system  of  denunciation,  which  is  calcu- 
lated, by  awakening  prejudice  and  passion,  to  prostrate  reason 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  11 

at  the  very  thi^eshold  of  inquiry,  and  thus  to  prejudge  the 
cause,  yourself  and  your  coadjutors  would  bring  the  Epis- 
copal pretensions  to  their  only  proper  test,  scripture  and 
ANTIQUITY.  I  did  hope  that  you  would  not  only  acknow- 
ledge "  the  right  of  an  Episcopalian  to  publish  his  peculiar 
sentiments,"  but  would  feel  the  force  of  the  corresponding 
obligation,  to  respect,  and  to  treat  with  decency  and  candour, 
the  exercise  of  this  right.  From  the  character  and  profes- 
sions of  some  of  the  gentlemen  who  were  to  conduct  the 
Christian's  Magazine,  I  did  flatter  myself,  that,  as  my  prin- 
ciples, unfounded  as  they  might  appear,  were  yet  couched  in 
decent  language,  they  would  be  tested  in  the  spirit  of  decency 
and  candour.  I  did  hope,  that  principles  maintained  by  an 
host  of  the  most  eminent  men  that  ever  defended  Christianity 
by  talents,  or  adorned  it  by  piety,  would  not,  with  rash  and 
impetuous  hand,  be  "  urged  over  the  precipice"  into  the 
gulph  of  infamy,  till  their  fallacy  had  been  "  detected "  by 
the  impartial  eye  of  dispassionate  reason.  My  imagination 
sometimes  deluded  me  with  the  hope,  that  a  discussion  would 
arise  firm  and  manly,  yet  temperate  and  honourable  ;  a  dis- 
cussion which  would  rescue  polemic  theology  from  the  charge 
of  that  virulence  which  has  hitherto  often  subjected  it  to 
merited  reproach.  My  feelings  sometimes  hailed  the  pros- 
pect of  a  discussion  which,  releasing  Christians  from  the 
disgraceful  chains  of  prejudice  and  passion,  and  guiding  them 
only  by  the  mild  lights  of  reason,  scripture,  and  antiquity, 
would  lead  them  to  form  just  views  of  the  ministry  and 
ordinances  of  the  Church,  the  sacred  fold  of  salvation,  very 
properly  styled  by  you,  ''  the  nursery  of  the  Church  in 
Heaven." 

But  sober  reflection  soon  dissipated  these  pleasing  hopes, 
I  was  satisfied  that  the  cause  of  the  opponents  of  Episco- 
pacy was  weali.  It  had  ever  shrunk  before  the  touch  of 
dispassionate  and  impartial  inquiry.  Its  advocates  had  sel- 
dom disdained  to  shield  it  from  the  wand  of  truth,  by  the 
weapons  of  low  ridicule,  of  harsh  invective,  of  virulent  and 


12  hobart's  apology 

unfounded  denunciation.  I  reflected  too  that  while  but  few 
men  reason^  all  men  feel ;  that  where  one  man  follows  the 
guidance  of  reason^  thousands  bow  under  the  sceptre  of 
passion;  that  where  mild  and  modest  argument  lights  one 
man  to  truth,  bold  and  imposing  declamation  rivets  on  thou- 
sands the  chains  of  error.  The  opponents  of  Episcopacy  I 
knew  would  carry  with  them  the  resistless  spirit  of  the  times. 
Palsied  by  morbid  indifference,  this  spirit  I  feared  would  not 
rouse  itself  to  patient  inquiry  on  religious  topics.  Throwing 
down  the  enclosures  of  truth,  I  feared  it  would  frown  on  all 
pretensions  which,  however  scriptural,  and  however  recon- 
cilable on  candid  construction  with  all  the  reasonable  claims 
of  charity,  appeared  to  be  exclusive.  Impressed  with  these 
reflections,  I  confess  I  did  fear  that  the  opponents  of  Episco- 
pacy would  avail  themselves  of  the  weakness  of  human 
nature,  and  of  the  spirit  of  the  times,  so  propitious  to  their 
cause.  I  did  fear  that  prejudice  and  passion,  seated  on  the 
throne  of  judgment,  would  be  roused  to  condemn  the  cause 
of  Episcopacy,  previously  even  to  an  investigation  of  its 
merits.  Investigation  might  fail — denunciation  would  be 
sure  of  success — for  who  would  listen  for  a  moment  to  these 
presumptuous,  arrogant,  and  impious  lords  over  the  under- 
standing, the  consciences,  the  eternal  destiny  of  men  }  Who 
could  be  induced  even  to  contemplate  "  extravagant  and 
arrogant  pretensions" — pretensions  which  '^  unchurched,  with 
a  dash  of  the  pen,  all  the  non-Episcopal  denominations  under 
heaven ;"  which  laid  them  under  the  ban  of  an  "  excommu- 
nication," "  as  criminal  as  it  is  dreadful !"  Where  the 
bosom  so  steeled  to  the  feelings  of  humanity  as  not,  in  the 
burst  of  righteous  indignation,  to  "  urge  over  the  precipice" 
the  monsters  who  advanced  "  positions  of  such  deep-toned 
horror,"  as  might  "  well  make  the  hair  stand  up  like  quills 
upon  the  fretful  porcupine,  and  freeze  the  warm  blood  at  its 
fountain  .^"* 

This  appeal  to  prejudice  and  passion,  those  tyrants  of  our 
*  This  is  the  language  in  which  you  denounce  me. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  13 

nature — ^this  appeal,  as  unjust  as  it  is  ungenerous  and  cruel — 
this  appeal,  precluding  all  candid  and  dispassionate  inquiry, 
even  an  honest  political  declaimer,  in  the  mad  fervour  ot 
party  zeal,  would  not  use  without  a  blush.  The  man  ot 
letters,  the  Christian,  the  divine  should  frown  it  from  him 
with  righteous  disdain.  You,  sir,  have  condescended  to 
enlist  it  in  your  cause.  Examine  the  review  of  the  Essays 
on  Episcopacy.  Every  sentence  rests  for  triumph  on  the 
success  of  its  appeal  to  the  prejudices  and  passions  of  the 
reader.  Urge  not,  in  extenuation,  that  effervescence  of  in- 
dignation which,  at  the  first  view  of  obnoxious  opmions, 
m,ay  overpower  the  cool  judgment,  the  mild  charities  of  even 
the  honest  and  amiable  heart.  More  than  two  years  have 
elapsed  since  these  obnoxious  opinions  must  have  tirst  met 
your  eye.  During  this  period  the  plan  of  the  Christian's 
Magazine  has  been  arranging,  materials  collecting,  and  the 
matter  preparing  that  was  to  enrich  its  pages.  There  has 
been  full  time  for  chastening  the  indignant  and  passionate 
review  of  the  Essays  on  Episcopacy^  by  the  gentle  dictates 
of  judgment  and  charity.  The  intemperate  spirit  which  it 
breathes  is  left  without  even  the  excuse  of  precipitancy  and 
rashness. 

Your  endeavour  to  enlist  the  prejudices  and  passions  of 
Christians  to  condemn,  without  an  impartial  hearmg,  the 
cause  of  Episcopacy,  may  obtain  a  triumph  ;  but  it  is  a 
triumph  which  I  shall  not  contest  with  you.  It  is  a  triumph, 
the  full  honours  of  which  I  shall  not  seek  to  wrest  from 
your  brow.  Yes,  sir,  you  may  succeed  in  inducing  non- 
Episcopalians  to  reject  a  candid  examination  of  opinions  on 
which  you  have  fixed  the  seal  of  blasphemy,  impiety  and 
horror.  You  may  even  rouse  those  Episcopalians  who  are 
"  ignorant  of  the  foundation  and  reasons  of  that  church  order 
to  which  they  adhere,"  and  who,  "  when  any  thing  is  done 
which,  though  strictly  proper,  does  not  coincide  with  their 
convenience  or  their  habits,  are  both  startled  and  displeased  ;" 
you  may  rouse  those  Episcopalians  who  "  have  thrown  the 

2 


4r4  hobabt's  apology 

reins  on  the  neck  of  their  charity,"  "  who  are  carried 
away  by  the  current  of  a  spurious  Uberality  ;"*  you  may 
rouse  them  to  join  with  you  in  sinking  under  the  charges 
of  rashness,  imprudence,  and  iUiberal  zeal,  those  guardians 
of  the  Church  who  presume  to  discharge  their  solemn  vows 
of  ordination  ; — to  "  drive  away  from  the  fold  those  erro- 
neous and  strange  doctrines  "  concerning  the  constitution  and 
ministry  of  the  Church,  which,  within  these  late  ages,  have 
rent  her  into  numberless  schisms.  Be  it  so.  They  who 
summon  courage  to  attack  the  monster  error  in  the  den  where 
he  has  long  reposed,  must  not  expect  him  to  yield  without  a 
struggle,  nor  until  he  has  exhausted  upon  them  the  venom 
and  fire  of  his  rage.  But  the  sceptre  of  truth,  wielded  by 
patient  and  persevering  courage,  will  at  length  paralize  his 
efforts,  and  lay  him  prostrate.  If  non-Episcopalians  have 
any  regard  to  the  sacred  claims  of  truth  and  justice,  they 
will  indignantly  spurn  every  attempt  to  enlist  their  prejudices 
and  passions  against  opinions  which  it  is  their  solemn  duty 
seriously  and  dispassionately  to  examine.  As  men  of  can- 
dour and  justice,  who  consider  their  judgment  and  conscience 
as  their  guides ;  as  honest  inquirers  after  truth ;  as  Christians 
who  are  to  answer  at  the  dread  tribunal  of  God,  whether 
they  have  earnestly  and  honestly  sought  to  subdue  prejudice 
and  passion,  I  trust  they  will  feel  it  their  sacred  duty  to  dis- 
regard your  denunciations,  to  read  and  judge  for  themselves. "f 
Episcopalians,  I  trust,  will  all  soon  be  ashamed  of  that  timid 
and  false  liberality  which,  by  concealing  the  distinctive  prin- 
ciples of  their  Church,  is  levelling  the  barriers  with  which 

*  1  mark  as  quotations  your  own  language. 

t  Every  principle  of  candour  and  justice  loudly  calls  on  them  to  peruse 
the  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy.  To  form  a  judg- 
ment on  this  important  subject  from  the  partial  representations  of  the 
Christian's  Magazine  would  be  treason  against  truth  and  conscience. 
The  advocates  of  Episcopacy  demand  only  candid  inquiry,  impartial  in- 
vestigation. Let  it  be  remembered,  the  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Episcopacy  contains  not  only  the  arguments  in  favour  of  it,  but 
those  of  the  Rev.  Dr  Linn  against  it. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  15 

the  sacred  wisdom  of  ages  hath  fenced  her  round ;  and  laying 
open  that  celestial  "  vine  which  the  right  hand  of  the  Lord 
hath  planted,"  to  the  destructive  assaults  of  heresy  and 
schism,  "to  be  rooted  up  by  the  boar  out  of  the  wood,  and 
devoured  by  the  wild  beast  of  the  forest." 

My  own  determination  is  unalterably  formed — in  that  firm 
language  which  conscious  truth  inspires,  but  in  "  that  meek- 
ness of  celestial  wisdom  "  which  the  gospel  enjoins,  to  defend 
the  Apostolic  Church,  at  whose  altar  I  minister,  against 
"  every  weapon  that  is  formed  against  her " — to  maintain 
that  sacred  institution  of  Episcopacy,  which,  committed  to 
the  Church  by  her  divine  Head,  no  unhallowed  hand  for 
fifteen  centuries  dared  to  touch ;  which  has  been  the  sacred 
channel  through  which  the  ministerial  commission  has  flowed 
from  him  who  is  "  the  Head  and  Saviour  of  the  body,"  to 
whom  "  all  power  is  given  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  I  shall 
respect,  I  have  always  respected,  the  conscientious  opiniqps 
of  others.  I  shall  resist  the  arm  of  violence,  whether  lifted 
up  against  their  religious  rights  or  my  own.  I  shall  not  de- 
nounce, I  have  never  denounced,  the  honest  inquirers  after 
truth,  by  whatever  name  distinguished.  No  difference  of 
opinion,  no  ire  of  controversy  shall  lead  me  to  cut  asunder 
the  sacred  ties  of  friendship ;  shall  ever  prevent  me  from 
regarding,  with  sincere  affection,  every  one  who  bears  the 
holy  impress  of  Jesus  as  the  subject  of  his  mercy  and  grace. 
But  while  mindful  of  my  ow^n  infirmity  and  liability  to  error, 
I  presume  not  to  wield  the  thunders  of  that  tribunal  where 
I  must  myself,  through  my  Saviour's  intercession,  plead  for 
mercy,  I  shall  discharge  the  sacred  duty  of  maintaining  and 
enforcing  that  order  of  the  Church  which,  it  is  my  conscien- 
tious conviction,  bears  the  seal  of  divine  authority.  As  "  a 
messenger,  a  watchman,  and  steward  of  the  Lord,"  bearing 
on  my  soul  the  solemn  obligation  "  to  teach  and  to  premonish, 
to  feed  and  to  provide  for  the  Lord's  family,"  I  shall  not 
"  cease  my  labour,  my  care  and  diligence,"*  in  warning  the 
*  Ordination  service. 


Ij'^yMj*    ^^. 


16  hobart's  apology 

members  of  Christ's  fold  of  the  guilt  and  danger  of  schism, 
of  separating  from  that  "  priesthood  who  derive  their  autho- 
rity by  regular  transmission  from  Christ,  the  divine  Head  of 
the  Church,  and  the  source  of  all  power  in  it."*  This  exer- 
cise of  a  common  right,  even  in  the  most  unexceptionable 
mode,  in  addresses  to  persons  of  the  Episcopal  communion 
(and  this  is  the  mode  in  which  I  originally  exercised  it,)  this 
discharge  of  a  sacred  duty  may  subject  me  to  odium  and 
denunciation.  The  destiny  still  more  to  be  deprecated  may 
await  me,  of  being  "  wounded"  (where  I  ought  to  find  en- 
couragement and  support)  "  in  the  house  of  my  friends."  I 
shall  still  have  the  consolation  of  having  faithfully  borne  my 
testimony  to  the  principles  of  the  Apostolic  and  primitive 
Church;  to  principles  which."  the  noble  army  of  martyrs" 
confessed  in  their  writings,  in  their  lives,  in  the  agonies  of 
those  cruel  deaths  to  which  their  persecutors  hunted  them  ; 
t#  principles  which  in  every  age  have  ranked  among  their 
advocates  some  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  science,  and 
intrepid  champions  of  divine  truth.  I  shall  still  have  the 
consolation  of  having  defended  the  cause  of  Episcopacy,  with 
inferior  strength  indeed,  but  with  equal  zeal,  in  the  same 
ranks  with  the  "  incomparable  Hooker,"  the  eminent  and 
revered  Bishops  Hall,  Andrews,  Sanderson,  Taylor, 
Beveridge,  Potter,  Wake,  Wilson,  Horne,  Horseley  ; 
the  learned  and  pious  divines  Chillingworth,  Hammond, 
Leslie,  Jones  ;  and  "  a  legion  more,"  illustrious  for  talents, 
for  learning  and  piety.  I  shall  still  have  the  consolation  of 
having  "  studied  to  approve  myself"  unto  my  divine  Master 
as  "  a  workman  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth."  These 
are  consolations  with  which  "  no  stranger  intermeddleth," 
which  even  the  rude  hand  of  violence  cannot  disturb.  The 
system  of  denunciation  which  you  pursue  is  calculated  to 
awaken  a  persecution  more  poignant  to  the  feeling  mind  than 
even  the  flame  and  sword  that  torture  the  body.  I  have  no 
hesitation  to  say  that  I  deprecate  it ;  and  I  must  pray,  there- 
*  Preface  to  tlie  Companion  for  the  Altar. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  17 

fore,  that  neither  my  faith  be  shaken,  my  resolution  weak- 
ened, nor  my  charity  extinguished.  I  must  pray  that,  amidst 
the  denunciation  of  foes  and  the  desertion  of  friends,  my  soul 
may  be  raised  in  holy  hope  above  this  misjudging  world ; 
may  soar  on  vigorous  wing  to  that  celestial  scene  where  the 
mists  of  error  shall  be  dissipated  by  the  radiant  beams  of 
truth,  and  its  faithful  and  honest  advocates  find  a  refuge  from 
the  scorn  of  the  world  in  the  eternal  plaudits  of  their  Re- 
deemer and  Judge. 


LETTER   III. 

Sir, 

The  Christian's  Magazine  comes  forth  in  a  proud  and 
imposing  attitude,  demanding  instant  submission  to  its  autho- 
ritative decrees  ;  and,  in  the  spirit  which  inflames  every  sen- 
tence, denouncing  immolation  on  the  altar  of  its  wrath, 
against  all  who  shall  refuse  to  bend  the  knee  to  its  dogmas. 
Little  disposed  to  yield  my  understanding  or  my  conscience 
to  the  keeping  of  any  man,  whatever  may  be  his  talents,  his 
learning,  or  his  worth,  you  must  excuse  me  if  I  refuse  to  pay 
divine  honours  to  this  idol  of  party,  or  to  submit  without  re- 
sistance to  its  unjust  denunciations.  Marked  indeed  it  is 
with  all  that  bitterness  of  controversy,  and  justifying  to  the 
full  extent  that  high  spirit  of  polemic  warfare,  to  chastise 
which,  1  have  supposed,  was  to  constitute  one  of  its  proudest 
triumphs.  The  sin  which  marked  my  conscience  with  a 
stain  black  as  midnight  darkness,  and  for  which  I  have  been 
pursued  with  indignant  invective,  is,  that  I  scattered  the  fire- 
brands of  discord  through  the  peaceful  seats  of  Zion.  The 
sin  for  which  the  charge  of  "  illiberal  bigot"  has  flashed  on 
my  devoted  head  from  a  thousand  tongues,  is,  that  I  arro- 
gantly denounced  all  denominations  but  my  own.  To  crush 
this  baneful  fiend  of  controversy,  the  parent  of  "  endless 


IS  hobart's  apology 

strife  and  every  evil  work ;"  to  cover  with  confusion  the 
arrogant  upstarts  who  hurled  the  bolts  of  denunciation  through 
the  Lord's  heritage,  the  Christian's  Magazine  was  to  rear  its 
arm,  formidable  with  the  concentered  genius,  talents,  and 
learning  of  a  constellation  of  divines.  When,  lo  !  we  are 
assailed  not  by  a  firm,  yet  temperate,  a  decided,  yet  decent 
defence  of  divine  truth  and  exposure  of  error,  but  by  a  sys- 
tem of  intemperate  denunciation.  Come,  sir,  I  put  this 
matter  "  upon  the  trial  before  the  bar  of  public  criticism."  I 
must  insist  on  your  accompanying  me  through  the  pages  of 
your  magazine.  A  tour  through  the  majestic  forest  which 
owes  its  vigorous  foliage,  its  towering  strength  to  your  ner- 
vous cultivation,  must  surely  raise  in  your  bosom  the  emo- 
tions of  exultation,  whatever  may  be  the  effect  of  the  survey 
on  my  feelings  or  those  of  the  public. 

I  assert,  sir,  that  your  magazine  presents  not  a  firm^  yet 
temperate^  a  decided^  yet  decent  defence  of  divine  truth  and 
exposure  of  error,  but  an  unrelenting  system  of  intemperate 
DENUNCIATION.  Let  US  opcu  your  introduction.  The  dif- 
ferent sects  and  parties  of  Christians  present  themselves 
before  you.  "  Some,"  you  say,  "  excluding  the  hght  of  un- 
derstanding, place  their  religion  in  fervour  of  feeling."  Here 
your  battery  first  opens  on  the  sect  of  enthusiasts.  We  are 
accustomed  to  consider  the  Methodists  as  distinguished  for 
placing  their  religion  in  fervour  of  feeling.  "  Some  clamour 
incessantly  for  doctrine,  as  if  the  heart  had  nothing  to  do  in 
the  service  of  God,  or  as  if  practical  holiness  were  a  neces- 
sary fruit  of  speculative  orthodoxy."  Here  I  must  acquit 
you  of  all  design  of  denouncing  Episcopalians ;  for  you  know 
they  are  charged  with  undervaluing  doctrinal  preaching.  But 
if  they  escape  here,  it  is  evidently  your  intention  in  the  next 
sentence  to  make  them  smart  under  the  lash  ;  for  you  ob- 
serve— "  Some,  like  the  self-justifiers  of  old,  '  tithe  mint  and 
anise  and  cummin' — little  concerned  about  ^  either  receiving 
the  Lord  Jesus,  or  walking  in  him,'  provided  they  be  exact 
in  their  routine  of  ceremonies,"  From  the  Episcopalians  you 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  19 

turn  your  wrathful  frown  to  a  sect  in  this  city,  I  believe,  of 
Baptists,  who  contend  that  they  are  consistent  Calvinists. 
They  maintain  that  as,  according  to  the  Calvinistic  system, 
Christ  is  the  Redeemer  of  the  elect  only,  as  he  shed  his 
blood  for  them  alone,  and  will  in  due  time  convert  them  by 
his  irresistible  grace,  they  who  are  not  thus  converted,  and 
are  therefore  not  of  the  number  of  the  elect,  have  no  concern 
in  the  offers  of  salvation.  And  as,  according  to  the  Calvinis- 
tic system,  the  elect  are  justified  by  the  unconditional  impu- 
tation of  Christ's  righteousness,  it  is  absurd,  they  contend,  to 
maintain  that  the  elect  are  subject  to  any  law  of  works  ;  since 
this  would  be  making  their  salvation  conditional,  would  be 
derogating  from  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  and  from  the  glory  of  God's  free  and  sovereign  grace. 
These  persons,  who  maintain  that  they  are  consistent  Calvi- 
nists, you  accuse  of  "  poisoning  the  Gospel  at  the  fountain 
head" — of  '*"  annihilating  the  authority  of  God  with  the  same 
blow  which  fells  the  hope  of  the  sinner."  High  Churchmen, 
nearly  crushed  by  your  first  blow,  are  now  laid  prostrate. 
For  you  accuse  them  of  laying  •'  as  much  stress  upon  their 
external  order,  as  if  the  key  which  opens  the  door  of  their 
communion  opened,  at  the  same  moment,  the  doors  of  Para- 
dise ;  although,"  you  continue  to  remark,  ''  upon  that  sup- 
position, it  is  evident  that  the  '■  gate'  and  '  way'  which  '  lead 
unto  life'  are  no  longer  straight  and  narrow."  Tremendous 
denunciation  !  for  if  the  "  gate"  and  "  way"  of  high  Church- 
men be  not  that  "  straight  gate  and  narrow  way"  which 
"lead  unto  life,"  they  must  be  the  "  wide  gate  and  broad 
way"  which  "  lead  to  destruction  !"  Low  Churchmen  next 
sink  beneath  your  ire.  Because  they  "  account  the  external 
order  of  the  house  of  God  a  matter  of  no  importance,"  you 
charge  them  with  "  countenancing,  at  least  indirectly,  viola- 
tion of  their  Lord's  commandment,  invasion  of  his  preroga- 
tive, and  assault  upon  his  truth."  "  And  as  although  all  this 
were  not  enough,"  as  if  the  triumphs  gained  over  these  pros- 
trate sects  could  not  satisfy  you,  you  scorn  not  to  erect  an- 


20  hobart's  apology 

other  trophy  on  the  neck  of  the  humble  Methodist  and 
harmless  Quaker.  As  they  endeavour  "  to  set  aside  the  dis- 
tinctive character,  and  the  authentic  call  of  the  gospel  minis- 
try," you  accuse  them  of  a  deadly  blow  at  Christianity  itself, 
of  "laying  the  axe  at  the  root  of  entire  Christianity."  And 
the  instruments  v^^hich  they  so  honourably  employ  in  this  de- 
testable service,  and  by  vi^hich  they  draw  many  after  "  their 
pernicious  ways,"  are  "  the  avarice  of  one  class,  the  conceit 
of  another,  the  credulity  of  a  third,  and  the  ignorance  of  all !" 
*'  A  jealousy  for  the  glory  o^  divine  teaching ^^^  their  "  avowed" 
motive  for  "  proscribing  from  the  ministry  all  learning,  taste, 
and  talents,"  is  only  a  "  mask  ;"  and  "  it  will  be  well,"  you 
observe,  "  if  the  mask  shall  be  found  to  have  concealed  the 
tendency  of  their  principles  from  their  own  view ;"  that  is, 
it  will  be  well  if  they  should  not  be  found  designing  hypo- 
crites, who  are  wilfully  "  laying  the  axe  at  the  root  of  entire 
Christianity  !"  Now,  if  all  this  be  not  an  unrelenting  system 
of  violent  and  unqualified  denunciation^  I  suppose  I  must  ac- 
knowledge myself  guilty  of  having  wilfully  converted  "  the 
gentle  dews  of  instruction  and  consolation  to  friends,"  into 
"  thunderbolts  hurled  at  the  heads  of  opponents." 

There  is  scarcely  a  page  of  your  magazine  which  does  not 
palpably  violate  those  judicious  rules  for  the  conducting  of 
religious  discussion  which  you  profess  to  take  as  your  guide. 
Even  the  essay  "  on  religious  controversy,"  the  design  of 
which  I  certainly  commend,  and  which  more  than  justifies 
me  in  all  my  publications,  breathes  ^.^  spirit  as  relentless 
against  all  who  even  doubt  the  policy '*t  utility  of  religious 
controversy,  as  ever  disgraced  the  most  violent  polemic. 
Hitherto  theological  combatants  have  persecuted  each  other. 
You  summon  them  to  shake  hands,  and  to  turn  wrathfully 
upon  those  who,  as  mediators,  would  persuade  them  to  lay 
down  the  weapons  of  theological  warfare.  One  would  have 
thought  that  this  essay  at  least  should  have  exhibited  a  spe- 
cimen of  that  cool,  that  decorous  manner,  that  charitable 
allowance  for  human  prejudice  and  passion  (which  enthral, 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  21 

alas !  the  best  of  men)  by  which  controversy  might  be  made 
to  subserve  the  holy  interests  of  truth.  No ;  the  "  pretence 
that  religion  is  a  concern  too  solemn  and  sacred  for  the  pas- 
sions of  controversy,"  you  pronounce  not  only  an  "error" 
(which  every  considerate  person  will  acknowledge,)  but  an 
"  error  without  excuse^''''  like  the  profane  "  pretence  with 
which  some  justify  their  restraining  prayer  before  God."* 
Nay,  "  no  medium  can  be  assigned  between  receiving  and 
rejecting  the  truth.  If  rejected,  we  seal  our  perdition  "j" — 
Involuntary  errm  is  no  palliation — perdition  is  the  certain 
doom  !  And  yet  the  Christian's  Magazine  was  to  chastise 
my  arrogant  and  uncharitable  pretensions  ! 

In  your  essay  on  "  liberality  in  religion,"  the  liberal 
Christian  is  "  pursued,  hunted,  and  urged  over  the  preci- 
pice "J  with  an  overbearing  and  intemperate  violence,  which 
must  tend  to  divert  from  him  that  sentence  of  just  censure 
which  sober  reason  would  otherwise  pronounce  on  him. 
This  spurious  liberality,  injurious  as  it  certainly  is  to  the 
cause  of  truth,  proceeds  not  always  from  a  culpable  indiffer- 
ence, but  frequently  from  an  excessive  mildness  of  disposi- 
tion, and  from  an  abuse  of  that  charity  which  "  hopeth  all 
things."  It  might  surely,  therefore,  claim  some  little  com- 
miseration, especially  from  the  ministers  of  him  who  "  is  not 
strict  to  mark  what,"  through  unavoidable  infirmity,  "  may 
be  done  amiss."  But  no,  sir,  your  inexorable  voice  seals, 
without  hope  of  mercy,  its  doom.  "  They  who  enlist  under 
the  banner  of  the  prevailing  liberality" — they  who  even 
"  profess  their  charity  "  not  for  certain  "  detestable  "  hereti- 
cal "  opinions^''''  but  only  for  those  who  hold  them .'" — they 
who  do  not,  therefore,  with  papal  intolerance,  sweep  into 
irremediable  perdition  every  heretic,  "  are  leagued  in  a  con- 
spiracy against  the  glorious  gospel "  of  the  "  great  God  our 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  21,  22. 

f  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  20. 

X  I  have  often  occasion  to  use  your  language. 


22  hobart's  apology 

Saviour  !"*  Gracious  Jehovah!  is  it  then  for  a  worm  of  the 
dust,  who  derives  all  his  hopes  from  thy  unmerited  mercy, 
to  wrest  from  thee  thy  thunder,  and  wield  it  against  his  fel- 
low worms  !  Thou,  gracious  Father  of  our  spirits  !  is  it 
then  for  us  to  pronounce  that  there  are  in  our  fallen  nature 
no  infirmities, — in  this  evil  world  no  unavoidable  sources  of 
prejudice,  which  can  possibly  render  even  fundamental  error 
venial  in  thy  sight,  and  wash  it  away  in  that  blood  which  was 
shed  for  "  the  sins  of  the  world  ?"  Or  is  it  not  enough  that 
he  who  errs  through  involuntary  and  unavoidable  weakness, 
will  be  condemned  at  thy  sovereign  tribunal ;  but  must  his 
doom  be  anticipated  by  the  lips  of  those  who  should  pity 
and  pray  for  him  ? 

Deplorable  indeed,  in  its  fairest  colours,  is  the  present  state 
of  the  Christian  Church.  But  your  pencil  seems  to  delight 
to  deepen  its  shades.  Not  a  ray  of  light  shoots  through  the 
tremendous  gloom.  "  Gross  ignorance  of  the  gospel  thickens 
apace  in  a  clime  that  is  illuminated  by  its  broadest  sunshine. 
The  barriers  which  ought  to  divide  the  Church  from  the 
world  are  swept  away,  and  every  trait  of  discrimination 
effaced,"  "In  a  land  of  Bibles,  which  cannot  be  opened 
without  the  lightning  of  God's  reprobation  of  their  folly 
flashing  in  their  faces,  miserable  sinners,  unjustified,  unwash- 
ed, unsanctified,  are  praising  each  other's  Christianity !" 
And  to  dash  from  the  picture  every  ray  of  consolation,  "  the 
delusion  is  often  fostered  by  the  very  men  whose  office  should 
impel  them  to  counteract  and  destroy  it  !"■[ 

That  a  spirit  of  denunciation  so  severe  on  bodies  and  com- 
munities should  not  relax  its  harsh  features  when  individuals 
encounter  its  criticism,  was  certainly  to  be  expected.  That 
I  should  be  made  to  '*  drink  of  the  dregs  of  the  cup"  of 
your  displeasure  has  long  been  threatened.  And  I  shall  soon 
have  occasion  to  show,  that  the  vials  of  your  wrath  have 
been  emptied  upon  me.     Even  Mr.  M^Leod,  your  friend 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  36. 
I  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  36,  37. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  23 

and  coadjutor,  sometimes  trembles  before  your  chair  of  cen- 
sorship. But  Mr.  M'Leod  had  written  a  good  Presbyterian 
catechism.  Mr.  M'Leod  is  a  good  Calvinist.  He  is  not, 
therefore,  to  be  too  harshly  handled.  The  aged  censor  ac- 
cordingly relaxes  the  rigid  frown,  and,  patting  him  on  the 
cheek,  as  if  he  were  a  school-boy  exhibiting  the  first  hard- 
drawn  efforts  of  invention,  brightens  up  his  sorrowful  coun- 
tenance by  the  kind  assurance,  that  the  many  imperfections 
of  his  style  "  will  wear  away  by  the  liberal  use  of  his  pen  !"* 
No  less  a  personage  than  the  Rev.  Dr.  Nott,  the  President 
of  Union  College,  is  summoned  to  pass  your  rigorous  ordeal. 
Liable  as  the  charge  of  the  Rev.  President  may  be  in  many 
respects  to  the  censure  of  a  just  and  correct  taste,  you 
"  detect,  pursue,  hunt,  and  urge  over  the  precipice  "  its  errors, 
with  an  overbearing  and  impetuous  spirit,  which  is  as  inju- 
rious to  his  public  character  as  it  is  revolting  to  taste,  truth 
and  feeling.  Qualified  by  no  real  commendation,  and  softened 
by  no  delicacy,  the  denunciations  issue  from  your  high  tribu- 
nal, that  Dr.  Nott's  imagination  is  ''  unequal,  erratic,  and 
uncontrolled  by  the  laws  of  correct  criticism."  In  the  style 
of  his  charge  "  we  look  in  vain  for  that  precision,  that 
strength,  that  chastened  and  firm  and  commanding  dignity 
which  befitted  the  occasion."  You  wrest  figures  from  their 
proper  place  and  connection,  where  alone  a  correct  judgment 
is  to  be  formed  on  their  justness  and  propriety,  and  exhibit 

*  In  your  note  at  page  107,  you  aim  a  side  blow  at  the  learned  Drs. 
Mitchill  and  Miller,  the  Editors  of  the  "  Medical  Repository."  These 
gentlemen  had  presumed,  without  consulting  you,  to  speak  in  terms  of 
some  commendation  of  "  Dufief's  Nature  Displayed,"  &c.  This  book, 
like  "  Mr.  Marshall's  Life,"  you  very  concisely  consign  to  the  "  cook- 
maid  and  the  vender  of  snufF,"  by  branding  it  as  "  vapouring  folly ;"  and 
then  remark,  "  that  people  who  are  unacquainted  with  the  science  of 
language  should  be  duped,  is  nothing  strange ;  but  that  the  deception 
should  be  upheld  by  names  which  ought  to  be  sacred  to  the  patronage  of 
sound  literature,  is  both  surprising  and  humiliating  ! !"  Nay,  sir,  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  the  learned  President  of  Princeton 
College,  and  other  literary  characters  who  recommended  Dufief's  work, 
are  branded  as  giving  their  sanction  to  "  vapouring  folly." 


24  hobart's  apology 

them  in  immediate  contrast  to  ridicule  and  scorn.  In  the 
parting  charge  of  a  President  of  a  college  to  his  students, 
limited  as  it  necessarily  must  be,  and  deriving  no  small  por- 
tion of  its  interest  from  its  being  supposed  to  flow  in  some 
measure  spontaneously  from  the  heart,  no  one  can  reasonably 
expect  the  arrangement  and  developement  of  a  laboured  and 
systematic  discourse.  But  because  in  this  single  charge  the 
extensive  sphere  of  instruction  is  not  exhausted,  and  every 
subject  enforced  which  can  be  interesting  to  the  studies,  the 
pursuits,  and  the  happiness  of  youth,  the  charge  is  denounced 
as  "  throwing  out"  merely  "  useful  hints,"  "  without  which 
it  would  be  absolutely  worthless  !"  Nay,  Dr.  Nott  has  "led 
his  pupils  along  the  confines  of  the  infected  region,"  which 
nourished  "  old  Celsus,"  and  still  fattens  ''  Thomas  Paine." 
Tell  me  not  that  he  has  done  this  "  undesignedly ;"  this 
aggravates  "  crime,"  by  the  guilt  of  inexcusable  ignorance. 
What !  a  respectable  Divine,  whose  business  it  is  to  attack 
and  conquer  the  strong  holds  of  infidelity — a  President  of  a 
college,  awfully  responsible  for  the  moral  principles  of  those 
whose  minds  he  cultures,  and  yet  "  undesignedly  leads  them 
along  the  confines  of  that  infected  region  "  which  taints  with 
the  pollution  of  death !  Nay,  sir,  you  assert  that  "  every 
thing  which  Dr.  Nott  has  said  might  be  said  by  a  sober  deist !" 
"  It  is  only  blank  atheism  which  Dr.  N.  rebukes  !"  A  minis- 
ter devoted  by  the  most  solemn  vows  to  the  cross  of  Christ, 
and  yet  in  effect  denying  him — ^what  can  he  be  but  a  perjured 
hypocrite  !  If  your  denunciations  be  well  founded,  would 
not  Dr.  Nott's  pupils  be  justified  in  wresting  from  his  chair 
the  monster  who,  under  the  smiles  of  affectionate  solicitude, 
is  secretly  infusing  into  their  souls  the  poison  that  will  pollute 
and  blast  them  for  ever  }  And  what  authorizes  these  tremen- 
dous denunciations — denunciations  against  a  minister  of  the 
gospel,  who,  if  general  report  can  be  relied  on  (for  you,  sir, 
are  silent  on  this  point,)  is  not  more  beloved  for  his  amiable 
temper,  than  respected  and  admired  for  the  evangelical  ardour 
of  his  public  ministrations  .'     What,  I  say,  has  occasioned 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  Q5 

these  tremendous  denunciations  ?  Dr.  Nott  "  placed  the 
character  of  Jesus  Christ  before  his  pupils  as  the  perfect 
model,  in  the  imitation  of  which  would  consist  their  happiness 
and  glory  " — and  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  obtrude  upon 
his  pupils  on  a  literary  occasion,  a  sermon — such  a  sermon 
as  would  be  able  to  stand  the  ordeal  of  the  Pastor  of  the 
first  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  the  city  of  New-York ! 
But  I  forbear  ;  Dr.  Nott,  if  he  deem  it  necessary,  can  vindi- 
cate himself ;  my  design  in  these  remarks  has  simply  been 
to  establish  my  general  position,  that  your  magazine  presents 
not  a  firm,  yet  temperate,  a  decided,  yet  decent  defence  of  divine 
truth  and  exposure  of  error,  hut  an  unrelenting  system  of  intem- 
perate denunciation. 


LETTER   IV. 

Sir, 

From  the  review  which  I  took  in  my  last  letter  of 
your  magazine,  I  think  I  am  authorized  to  say,  that  I  look  in 
vain  through  its  pages  for  that  delicacy  of  feeling,  that  refine- 
ment of  taste,  that  modest  recollection  of  human  infirmity, 
that  tender  regard  for  the  character  and  feelings  of  others, 
which  are  strictly  compatible  with  the  sternest  devotion  to 
the  cause  of  truth,  and  which  make  us  feel  the  justice  while 
they  soothe  the  severity  of  criticism.  The  radiance  of  mercy 
which  invites  sinful  mortals  to  the  throne  of  the  Eternal,  and 
which  even  their  crimson  sins  could  not  extinguish,  is  banish- 
ed from  the  stern  seat  of  judgment  in  which  you  are  enthroned. 
Bolt  succeeding  bolt  is  hurled  on  the  hapless  culprit,  and 
down  he  sinks  the  victim  of  execration  and  scorn. 

Writers  whose  intentions,  whatever  may  be  their  errors, 
are  evidently  honest,  have  a  claim  upon  the  public  for  de- 
cency and  civility  of  treatment.  Authoritative  judgment 
upon  their  writings  belongs  to  the  public  alone.     And  when 

3 


)36  hobart's  apology 

any  individual,  self-elevated  to  the  throne  of  criticism,  impe- 
riously deals  around  him  the  arbitrary  sentence  of  condem- 
nation, mollified  neither  by  politeness  of  manner,  nor  by 
delicacy  and  refinement  of  style,  the  public  I  conceive  are 
insulted  in  this  violent  and  unjust  exercise  of  their  prero- 
gative. 

Perhaps  you  claim  from  your  office  as  reviewer  a  right  to 
pursue  this  system  of  denunciation.  But  does  your  elevation 
to  the  chair  of  criticism  throw  at  your  feet  every  writer  who 
presumes  to  address  the  public,  and  authorize  you  to  de- 
nounce his  errors  and  imperfections,  as  if  they  were  sins  that 
should  consign  him  to  eternal  infamy  ?  It  is  the  tendency  of 
literature  to  polish  the  taste ;  to  soften  the  asperities  of  our 
nature  ;  and  to  substitute  the  language  of  cultivated  and 
polished  gentlemen  for  the  boorish,  but,  no  doubt,  frequently 
nervous  language  of  the  vulgar.  But  the  style  of  your  criti- 
cal remarks  is  calculated  to  change  the  hall  of  the  Lyceum 
into  the  arena  of  the  Amphitheatre,  and  the  dignity  and  de- 
corum which  should  characterise  the  discussion  of  truth  into 
the  virulence  and  animosity  which  disgrace  even  personal 
combats. 

Are  we  to  admit  as  an  excuse  for  this  bold  and  imperious 
denunciation,  your  zeal  for  God  and  his  holy  truth  ?  And  is 
it  thus,  sir,  our  blessed  Master  has  taught  us  to  "  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  .?"  In  "  detecting,"  in  "  pursuing," 
in  *'  hunting  error,"  has  he  commanded  us  to  "  urge  it  over 
the  precipice,"  regardless  of  the  dictates  of  that  charity 
which  "  hopeth  all  things,  believeth  all  things,  is  not  puffed 
up,  and  vaunteth  not  itself.^"  Is  our  ardent  zeal  to  rush  on 
its  desolating  career,  contemning  that  celestial  "wisdom" 
which  is  ''gentle,  easy  to  be  intreated,  and  full  of  mercy.'*" 

Can  a  system  of  intemperate  denunciation  find  an  apology 
in  the  strength  and  ardour  of  genius  ?  There  is,  indeed,  a 
glow  of  soul  which  lights  on  truth  with  almost  intuitive 
keenness  ;  which  seizes  it  with  impetuous  ardour ;  and  bears 
it  forward  to  victory,  unappalled  by  obstacles,  quickened  to 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  27 

higher  intrepidity  by  dangers  and  defeats.  This  glow  of  soul, 
this  vis  fervida  mentis,  towering  above  the  pusillanimous 
efforts  of  weak  and  inferior  minds,  commands  my  homage. 
It  is  the  illustrious  mark  of  exalted  genius — it  is  the  lofty 
attendant  of  the  noble  spirit — it  is  the  spring  of  whatever  is 
great  in  thought,  of  whatever  is  magnanimous  in  action. 
When  it  is  controlled  by  correct  judgment ;  when  it  is  chas- 
tened by  polished  taste ;  when  the  divine  spirit  of  Christian 
charity  mitigates  its  boldness  and  impetuosity,  it  shines  like 
the  lustre  of  the  sun-beam ;  carrying  the  light  of  conviction 
to  the  bosom  of  error,  through  the  deep  folds  in  which  she 
has  enwrapped  herself;  and  shedding,  on  the  mild  form  of 
truth,  celestial  and  resistless  charms.  But  when  this  ardour 
of  soul  contemns  the  guidance  of  judgment,  disdains  the 
polish  of  taste,  and  frowns  on  the  suggestions  of  Christian 
charity,  how  appalling  and  devastating  its  course  !  Raging 
like  the  "  northern  blast,"  the  charms  of  intellectual  nature 
are  withered ;  delicacy,  sentiment,  taste  and  feeling,  bound 
in  icy  chains ;  and  all  the  mild  and  tender  charities  of  the 
heart  swept  as  with  the  "  besom  "  of  death. 

Sir,  I  cannot  avoid  suggesting  to  you — (pardon  my  pre- 
sumption)— whether,  with  all  your  profound  attainments, 
you  have  yet  acquired  that  essential  constituent  in  a  great  and 
useful  character,  a  knowledge  of  human  nature.  Had  the 
human  heart  been  laid  open  before  you,  you  would  have 
found  that  pride  is  its  governing  principle ;  and  that  a  senti- 
ment of  just  and  honest  pride  revolts  against  oppression, 
whether  the  despot  lay  his  yoke  on  the  body  or  the  mind. 
He  whose  understanding  is  perverted  by  error  must  be 
treated  with  mildness,  with  decency,  with  respect ;  or  you  fix 
him  irreclaimably  in  his  errors — you  rouse  him  to  vigorous 
resistance.  Persecute  error,  and  you  surround  it  with  an  host 
of  friends,  who  will  throw  their  shields  before  it,  and  dare 
your  assaults.  Had  you  known,  or  regarded  this  palpable 
fact  in  the  history  of  human  nature,  you  would  not  have 
attempted,  by  lofty  denunciation  and  virulent  declamation,  to 


28  hobart's  apology 

compel  the  judgments  and  consciences  of  men  to  bow  impli- 
citly to  your  dogmas.  The  iron  sceptre  which  you  have 
wielded  against  the  sacred  sanctuary  of  the  mind,  would  have 
crumbled  from  your  hand,  or  fastened  its  wrath  only  on  the 
incorrigibly  wicked.  You  would  have  sought  from  your 
divine  Master  the  "  rod"  of  celestial  wisdom.  By  its  mild 
and  powerful  sway,  you  would  have  sought  to  reclaim  from 
the  paths  of  error  the  unhappy  wanderer,  and  gently  to  lead 
him,  pouring  forth  blessings  on  his  compassionate  Shepherd, 
beside  the  peaceful  "  waters"  of  truth  and  salvation. 

It  would  be  arrogance  in  me  to  expect  that  you  should 
feel  the  justice  of  the  preceding  strictures.  I  can  assure  you 
they  are  not  congenial  with  my  taste  or  feelings.  Had  the 
Christian's  Magazine  come  forward  to  discuss  dispassionately 
and  respectfully  the  important  topics  of  literature  and 
taste ;  to  institute  a  fair,  candid,  and  respectful  comparison 
between  the  "conflicting  claims "  of  theological  opinions; 
to  throw  the  light  of  truth  on  the  dark  retreats  of  error,  by 
perspicuous  and  forcible,  yet  temperate  and  decorous  argu- 
ment, I  should  have  respected  its  claims ;  I  should  have 
hailed  it  as  a  fair  candidate  for  public  support.  What  I  might 
have  deemed  its  errors,  if  temperately  maintained  ;  what  I 
might  have  deemed  its  false  criticisms  on  my  writings,  if  de- 
cently urged,  I  should  have  delighted,  I  should  have  been 
emulous  to  meet  with  equal  temper  and  decency.  In  a  con- 
test where  only  the  love  of  truth  sways  the  bosom,  and 
politeness,  taste,  and  candour  wield  the  weapons  of  warfare, 
I  should  be  proud  in  being  ranked  as  a  combatant,  nor  should 
I  deem  it  dishonourable  to  bow  to  a  victor.  But,  judging 
from  the  first  number  of  the  Christian's  Magazine,  what  is 
its  design }  Evidently  to  pronounce  decrees  concerning 
every  topic  of  taste,  literature  and  religion  with  oracular 
confidence;  and  to  "pursue  "and  "  hunt "  dissent  from  its 
dogmas  as  an  offence  deep  as  that  of  questioning  holy  writ. 
Renouncing  fair,  candid,  temperate  inquiry,  it  disdains  not  to 
torture  opinions  into  the  most  detestable  consequences,  and 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER,  29 

then  to  hold  up  those  who  maintain  them  to  execration  and 
scorn ; — closing  its  pages  against  the  language  of  defence 
and  remonstrance.  What,  sir,  is  evidently  the  design  of  its 
editor — a  design  in  the  success  of  which  some  of  his  friends 
are  already  triumphing  ?  Not  merely  to  browbeat  and  intimi- 
date the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  but  to  denounce  all  who 
question  the  infallibility  of  his  standard  of  taste  and  criti- 
cism ;  all  who  shall  presume  to  shake  off,  as  equally  unrea- 
sonable and  unscriptural,  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism; 
when  it  is  apparent  that  these  are  the  designs  of  the  maga- 
2dne  and  its  editor,  I  take  the  liberty  of  inquiring  what 
claims  have  they  to  forbearance  or  indulgence  ?  When  the 
sacred  rights  of  judgment,  of  conscience,  of  free  inquiry  are 
violated,  can  tame  submission  consist  either  with  indepen- 
dence or  virtue  ?  When  in  the  republic  of  literature,  a  dic- 
tator usurps  the  throne,  are  we  to  cast  down  the  spear  and 
shield,  and  kiss  the  rod  ?  When  in  the  sacred  concerns  of 
religion,  a  divine  injunction  binds  it  on  the  conscience  to 
"  call  no  man  master  on  earth,"  can  it  weaken  the  solemn 
duty  of  resistance  that  the  bull  of  infallibility  issues,  not 
from  the  Pope  of  Rome,  but  from  the  Pastor  of  an  Associate- 
Reformed  Church  ?  If,  therefore,  you  should  attempt  to  ride 
over  the  necks  of  your  own  people  ;  if  you  should  aim  at 
compelling  the  very  complaisant  Clergy  who  bear  with  you 
the  common  name  of  Presbyterian,  implicitly  to  obey  all 
your  caprices  and  decrees,*  it  is  no  concern  of  mine.  But 
when  you  claim  despotic  authority  over  me,  there  is  a  spirit 
within  me  which  instantly  says.  No.  And  though  the  powers 
of  my  mind  may  not  rise  equal  to  the  proud  independence  of 
my  heart,  that  heart  resolutely  determines  to  shake  off  the 
yoke  of  a  dictator — One  is  its  Lord  and  master,  even  Christ, 
and  it  will  not  ''bow  the  knee  to  Baal."  You  leave  me  no 
alternative.    I  must  either  turn  and  resolutely  stem  the  flood 

*  It  seems  they  have  transferred  the  magazine  to  you  as  editor  and  pro- 
prietor, and  from  the  sentence  you  pronounce  on  their  communications 
there  is  no  appeal. 

3* 


30  hobart's  apology 

of  denunciation,  or  sink  beneath  its  surges.  When  the  gentle 
breeze  fans  the  plain,  the  humble  lily  of  the  valley  may  rest 
secure  in  its  lowliness  and  simplicity.  But  when  winds  and 
tempests  bear  along  the  raging  torrent,  even  the  venerable 
oak  of  the  forest,  whose  roots  sinking  deep  for  ages  have 
seized  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  finds  its  safety  only  in 
bearing  up  unyielding  to  the  blast.  Happy  may  I  esteem 
myself  if  I  can  summon  strength  and  resolution  to  conflict 
with  the  storm  whose  black  clouds  have  long  rolled,  and  at 
length  emptied  upon  me  the  floods  of  wrath. 

If  any  persons  are  not  satisfied,  from  the  view  already 
taken  of  your  magazine,  that  it  calculates  for  success  on 
confident  assertion,  bold  declamation,  and  virulent  denuncia- 
tion, let  them  candidly  consider  your  "  review  of  the  Collec- 
tion of  Essays  on  Episcopacy."  There,  quahfied  only  by 
one  single  expression  of  "  unfeigned  respect"  for  "  personal 
character,"  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  among  whom  I  am 
honoured  with  a  conspicuous  place,  are  held  up  to  public 
view  in  colours  that  must  efiectually  destroy  all  their  claims 
to  respect  and  even  to  toleration.  They  are  represented  as 
advancing  "extravagant,"  "offensive"  and  "arrogant" 
"pretensions;"*  as  "  hurling  thunderbolts  at  the  heads  of 
opponents  ;"!  as  involving  non-Episcopalians  indiscriminately 
in  the  charges  of  being  "  schismatics,  usurpers,  rebels  ;"J 
as  charging,  in  effect,  "  all  clergymen  not  Episcopally  or- 
dained with  being  impostors,  their  commissions  forgeries,  and 
their  sacraments  blasphemy  ;"§  as  repeating  "  aspersions " 
which  "  violate  all  the  rules  of  prudence  and  charity  ;"||  as 
asserting  that  all  "  non-Episcopalians "  are  "  children  of 
wrath,"  whose  religion  is  "  marred  and  rendered  stark 
naught "  by  "  separation  from  the  Episcopal  priesthood,"!! 
and  softening  this  "sweeping  sentence  of  proscription "  by 
a  "  relief  not  worth  accepting  "**  as  imposing  the  awful 
"  alternative.  Episcopacy  of  perdition  !  !"||  as  pronouncing 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  87  and  104.  f  p.  90.  J  p.  90- 

§  p.  92.         II  p.  92.  IT  p.  94.         **  p.  94.         ft  P-  95. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER'.  31 

"  upon  millions  of  the  dead  and  living  "  an  excommunication 
as  criminal  as  it  is  dreadful  ;*  as  deliberately  holding  "  posi- 
tions of  such  deep-toned  horror  as  may  well  make  the  hair 
stand  up  '  like  quills  upon  the  fretful  porcupine,'  and  '  freeze 
the  warm  blood  at  its  fountain  ;"|  as  having  "  done  much 
towards  misleading  men's  minds  as  to  the  foundation  of  eter- 
nal hope  ;"J  as  guilty  of  the  horrible  blasphemy  of  "placing 
the  external  order  of  the  Church  upon  a  level  with  the  merits 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  and  of  holding  opinions  which  make  all 
"  non-Episcopalians,  of  necessity,  infidels  ;"§  as  "  virtually 
delivering  unto  Satan  hundreds  of  churches  "||  pure  in  doc- 
trine, discipline,  worship,  resplendent  in  piety  and  godhness, 
while  comparatively  the  church  which  they  advocate  and  its 
ministers  are  deficient  in  "  evangelical  preaching,"  regard- 
less of  "  pure  communion,"  negligent  in  feeding  "  the  sheep 
of  Christ  and  his  lambs  with  the  bread  of  God,"  attracting 
the  "  thoughtless  gay,"  but  holding  out  little  to  "  allure 
those  who  become  seriously  concerned  about  their  eternal 
salvation  " — "  Verily  "  if  this  is  not  a  denunciation  of  the 
JEpiscopal  Church  and  her  advocates,  calculated  to  consign 
them  to  indignation  and  scorn — if  this  is  not  a  violent  denun- 
ciation of  Episcopalians,  "  it  is  so  like  one,  that  we  need  a 
shrewd  interpreter  at  our  elbow  to  prevent  our  mistaking  it. 
^  I  never,'  said  Jack  of  Lord  Peter's  brown  bread,  '  saw  a 
piece  of  mutton  in  my  life  so  nearly  resembling  a  twelve- 
penny  loaf !  !"'ir    And  this  denunciation  is  hurled  against  us, 

*  p.  96  and  97.  •  f  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  96. 

I  p.  98.  §  p.  99, 100.  II  p.  102. 

IT  I  am  indebted  for  this  apt  retort  to  you,  and  you  to  Swift's  Tale  of  a 
Tub.  You  quote  as  authority  this  celebrated  satire.  I  shall  certainly  be 
excusable  in  quoting  it  after  you.  What  think  you  of  the  following, 
taken  from  that  pai-t  of  the  «  Tale  of  a  Tub"  where  Martin  and  Jack  are 
represented  as  stripping  their  coats  (their  respective  churches)  of  the 
superfluous  ornaments  with  which  Lord  Peter  had  decorated  them. 
"  Zeal  is  never  so  highly  obliged  as  when  you  set  it  a  tearing;  and  Jack, 
who  doated  on  this  quality  in  himself,  allowed  it  its  full  swing.  Thus 
it  happened,  that  stripping  down  a  parcel  of  gold  lace  a  little  too  hastily, 
he  rent  the  main  body  of  his  coat  from  top  to  bottom;  and,  wheriea'^  Rfs 


32  hobart's  apology 

though  we  disclaim  repeatedly  and  solemnly  all  the  deduc- 
tions upon  which  it  is  founded,  and  hold  them  in  utter  detes- 
tation. Let  the  reader  reflect  on  this  conduct,  and  then  turn 
to  the  introduction  of  your  magazine — "  No  abuse  nor  viru- 
lence shall  pollute  its  pages."*  Let  him  turn  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  essay  "  on  Religious  Controversy" — "  No  con- 
sequence of  an  opinion  should  be  attributed  to  those  by  whom 
it  is  disowned."!  And  then  let  him  turn  to  "his  account 
current  with  human  imperfection. "J 

What,  sir,  let  me  seriously  ask  you,  would  you  think  of 
this  system  of  denunciation  were  it  aimed  against  yourself  ? 
What  would  you  think  of  a  man  who,  while  he  would  not 
"  dispute  your  right  to  publish  your  peculiar  sentiments, "§ 
should  knock  you  down  the  first  word  you  uttered  ?  In 
what  light  would  you  regard  a  religious  instructor  who, 
while  he  enforced  the  duty  of  "  contending  earnestly  for  the 
faith,"  should  argue  and  write  as  if  it  were  utterly  impossi- 
ble that  the  faith  could  exist  but  in  the  dogmas  of  his  own 
bosom  ?  What  would  you  think  of  a  writer  whose  publica- 
tions should  breathe  in  every  page  the  language,  "  I  am  the 
man,  and  wisdom  shall  die  with  me  !"  What  would  you 
think  of  a  religious  zealot  who,  with  one  hand,  should  smite 
that  idol  of  modern  worship,  "  liberality  of  opinion,"  and, 

talent  was  not  of  the  happiest  in  taking  up  a  stitch,  he  knew  no  better 
way  than  to  darn  it  again  vfith  pack-thread  and  a  skewer.  But  the  mat- 
ter was  yet  infinitely  worse  (I  record  it  with  tears)  when  he  proceeded 
to  the  embroidery :  For  being  clumsy  by  nature,  and  of  temper  impa- 
tient; withal,  beholding  millions  of  stitches  that  required  the  nicest 
hand,  and  sedatest  constitution  to  extricate,  in  a  great  rage  he  tore  off  the 
whole  piece,  cloth  and  all,  and  flung  it  into  the  kennel,  and  furiously 
thus  continued  his  career  : — "  Ah  !  good  brother  Martin,"  said  he,  "  do 
*'  as  I  do,  for  the  love  of  God ;  strip,  tear,  pull,  rend,  flay  off  all,  that  we 
"  may  appear  as  unlike  the  rogue  Peter  as  it  is  possible ;  I  would  not  for 
"  an  hundred  pounds  carry  the  least  mark  about  me  that  might  give 
«  occasion  to  the  neighbours  of  suspecting  that  I  was  related  to  such  a 
«  rascal !" 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  14.  f  p.  25.  t  See  concluding 

sentence  of  Essay  on  "  Religious  Controversy,"  p.  26.  §  p.  93. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  33 

with  the  other,  should  seize  the  throne  of  "  the  Vicar  of 
Christ ;"  who,  thundering  bull  after  bull  from  the  Vatican, 
should  require  every  person,  without  appealing  to  his  senses 
or  understanding,  instantly  to  receive  their  decrees,  or  be 
stretched  on  the  rack  of  inquisitorial  despotism  ?*  Pardon 
me,  sir,  your  enforcing  with  firmness  and  decency  your  own 
opinions,  your  attacking  with  plainness  and  warmth  obnoxious 
errors,  constitute  no  just  ground  of  crimination.  It  is  your 
attempt,  by  a  system  of  violent  denunciation,  to  excite  against 
me  the  prejudices  and  passions  of  your  readers,  which  impe- 
riously demands  the  most  pointed  resistance.  Your  candid 
criticisms  I  do  not  fear.  Your  temperate  reasonings  I  do  not 
deprecate.  I  contest  not  your  right  even  to  "  detect," 
"  hunt,"  and  "  pursue  "  my  "  errors ;" — only  let  reason  and 
candour,  not  prejudice  and  passion,  be  my  pursuers.  "  Urge 
me  not  over  the  precipice  "  until  dispassionate  and  charitable 
judgment  has  decided  that  my  opinions,  with  all  their  quali- 
fications, are  "  extravagant,"  "  arrogant,"  and  of  "  deep- 
toned  horror."  But  you  do  not  inquire  into  the  abstract 
truth  or  falsehood  of  my  opinions  ;  you  torture  them  to  ex- 
treme consequences,  as  unjust  as  they  are  repugnant  to  my 
assertions  and  feelings.  It  is  your  determination  to  "  leave 
me  no  shelter  from  crime  but  the  thickets  of  contradiction ;" 
— a  contradiction  not  on  some  topics  of  taste,  literature,  or 
polities,  but  on  the  infinitely  momentous  concerns  of  eternity: 
a  contradiction,  therefore,  which,  considering  my  responsi- 
bility as  a  guide  of  the  souls  of  men,  holds  me  up  to  more 
than  scorn  and  contempt.  This  conduct  constitutes  the 
ground  of  my  complaining.  Against  this  I  protest.  I  have 
a  right  to  resist  it,  and  the  dearest  principles  of  self-defence 
justify  the  exercise  of  this  right. 

*  Your  quere  may  be  easily  answered — "  How  many  bow-shots  is  such 
a  writer  oft'  from  the  territory  of  our  sovereign  lord  the  Pope  ?"  He  did 
not  wait  for  the  hat  of  a  Cardinal,  but  with  one  leap  mounted  the  papal 
chair—"  We  ne'er  shall  look  upon  his  like  again." 


34  hobart's  apology 


LETTER    V. 
Sir, 

I  SHALL  now  more  particularly  take  up  your  "  review 
of  the  Essays  on  Episcopacy."  I  pledge  myself  to  prove  that 
it  is  one  continued  strain  of  confident  assertion,  intemperate 
declamation,  and  uncandid  views  of  my  opinions.  I  pledge 
myself  to  make  every  weapon  which  you  have  aimed  against 
me  recoil  upon  yourself. 

Your  illustrious  predecessor,  the  author  of  '^  Miscellanies," 
had  taken  no  small  pains  to  fix  on  me  the  odium  of  having 
made  a  violent  and  unprovoked  attack  upon  non-Episcopa- 
lians. This  charge  exactly  suited  your  plan  of  denunciation. 
It  would  enable  you  to  rouse,  at  the  very  "  threshold,"  the 
prejudices  and  passions  of  your  readers.  The  work  you 
purposed  to  review  would  be  condemned  before  one  argu- 
ment had  been  offered  to  expose  its  fallacy.  It  would  have 
been  requiring  too  much  of  you,  therefore,  to  disdain  to  dress 
up  in  more  glaring  colours  the  unfounded  aspersion,  that  I 
was  a  wanton  and  unprovoked  aggressor.  The  author  of 
Miscellanies  was  immediately  met  by  my  friend  the  "  Lay- 
man." In  his  third  and  fourth  number*  this  gentleman  de- 
fended these  publications  from  the  charge  of  aggression.  He 
proved  that  they  only  contained  what  the  writer  deemed  the 
principles  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  stated  in  an  unexcep- 
tionable style — that  this  statement  of  their  peculiar  opinions 
was  a  right  exercised  by  all  denominations,  and  never  before 
considered  as  a  just  cause  of  offence — that  the  consequences 
of  these  opinions,  unavoidably  affecting  other  denominations, 
were  qualified  by  every  allowance  for  the  erroneous  conclu- 
sions of  the  sincere  and  honest  inquirers  after  truth  which 
the  most  unbounded  charity  could  demand.  The  unjust  charge 
of  aggression  was  thus  refuted  and  exposed.  The  weapon 
which  the  author  of  Miscellanies  aimed  against  me  dropt 
*  Collection  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  p.  30,  &c.  and  40,  &c. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  35 

from  his  arm.  In  the  burst  of  mortified  indignation  you  have 
rushed  forward,  and  condescended  to  take  it  up.  Wielded 
by  you,  it  comes  winged  with  destruction.  You  quote  ob- 
noxious passages.*  You  turn  them  over  and  over.  You 
sift  them  till  nothing  is  left  but  some  hard  names.  These 
you  represent  me  as  ungraciously  dealing  against  non-Epis- 
copalians. Your  triumph  seems  now  almost  complete  ;  and 
a  keen  stroke  of  satire  lays  me  prostrate  at  your  feet.  But 
"  I  cry  you  mercy  " — I  have  had  a  little  time  to  breathe — 
And  humbly  beg  you  to  permit  me,  by  a  simple  story,  to  de- 
fend myself.  It  pains  me  to  be  compelled  by  your  denun- 
ciations, to  occupy  so  much  of  these  letters  with  personal 
remarks. 

My  opinions  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  cannot  be  ranked 
among  the  prejudices  of  education.  I  bless  God  that  I  was 
baptized,  in  infancy,  in  the  Episcopal  Church.  That  part 
of  my  life,  however,  during  which  my  religious  principles 
became  a  subject  of  my  anxious  investigation,  was  passed  at 
a  Presbyterian  college.  Respect  and  veneration  for  my  in- 
structors and  guides  in  the  paths  of  science — esteem  and 
affection  for  many  valued  friends,  to  whom  I  knew  certain 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  would  be  obnoxious, 
excited  in  my  bosom  ^a  painful  struggle  between  the  most 
amiable  impulses  of  feeling  and  the  strong  demands  of  duty. 
But  when  after  as  honest  and  faithful  examination  as  I  was 
able  to  make,  I  became  fully  satisfied  that  it  was  '*  evident 
from  scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that  there  have  been  from 
the  Apostles'  times  three  orders  of  ministers.  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons  in  Christ's  Church ;"  and  that  the  Episcopal 
Church  considered  no  man  as  "  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or 
Deacon  who  hath  not  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordina- 
tion,"! ^^  surely  became  my  duty  to  maintain  and  inculcate 
what  the  Church  had  thus  solemnly  declared.  Perhaps  also 
I  had  cause  to  apprehend  that  Episcopalians  in  many  places 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  90. 

t  Preface  to  the  Ordination  Services. 


36  hobart's  apology 

were  losing  sight  of  these  important  truths  ;  that  many  of 
them  made  no  distinction  as  to  authority  between  ministers 
Episcopally  ordained,  whom  the  Episcopal  Church  considers 
as  alone  "  lawful  ministers,"  and  those  who  had  not  received 
Episcopal  ordination ;  and  through  the  want  of  correct  in- 
formation I  myself  had  been  led,  in  some  cases,  to  violate 
the  principles  of  my  church.     It  surely  cannot,  therefore,  be 
a  matter  of  surprise  that  I  should  feel  a  solicitude  to  arrest, 
by  my  efforts,  however  humble,  the  progress  of  an  indifference 
and  laxity  of  opinion  which  threatened  destruction  to  the  dis- 
tinctive principles  of  the  Episcopal  Church.     Had  I  been 
disposed  to  invite  controversy,  I  would  have  advocated  and 
enforced  Episcopacy  in  books  inviting  general  perusal.    Had 
I  been  disposed  to  attack  non-Episcopalians,  I  would  have 
made  a  pointed  address  to  them.     But  my  single  object  was 
the  instruction  of  Episcopalians.     I  was,  therefore,  desirous 
to  avoid  controversy,  and  particularly  all  reasonable  cause  of 
offence  to  others.     The  doctrine  of  the  Church,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Episcopacy,  was  published  in  Manuals  of  Devotion 
and  Instruction,  addressed  to  Episcopalians,  and  calculated 
for  them  alone.     Now,  sir,  what  was  this  but  the  "  peaceful 
exercise  of  a  common  right  .?"*    In  what  more  unexception- 
able mode  could  I  have  attempted  to  instruct  Episcopalians 
in  the  principles  of  their  church }     In  what  more  unexcep- 
tionable mode  could  I  have  admonished  them  of  the  danger 
and  guilt  of  separating  from  that  ministry  which  only  their 
church  declared  lawful  1     If  the  terms  in  which  this  admo- 
nition was  couched  unavoidably  affected  other  denominations, 
the  fault  was  in  the  nature  of  the  subject,  not  in  the  monitor. 
And  as  you  declare  that  you  "  shall  neither  dispute  the  right 
of  an  Episcopalian  to  publish  his  own  sentiments,  nor  when 
they  happen  to  bear  hard  upon  others,  shall  cry  out  against 
their  uncharitableness,"  permit  me  to  inquire,  why  you  brand 
the  exercise  of  this  right  with  the  most  harsh  and  opprobrious 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  90. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  37 

epithets  ?  Think  you  that  "  uncharitable  pretensions  "  (an 
epithet  which  you  condemn  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies " 
for  using)  sounds  harsher  in  my  ears  than  "  arrogant," 
''  extravagant "  pretensions,  "  positions  of  deep-toned  hor- 
ror?" Compared  with  these  denunciations,  the  decla- 
mations of  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies "  against  "  bigo- 
try and  superstition,"  are  as  the  "  gentle  dew  "  to  the  angry 
"  thunderbolt."  To  concede  in  the  most  unqualified  terms 
the  "  right  of  an  Episcopalian  to  publish  his  peculiar  senti- 
ments," and  yet  to  denounce  him  as  an  aggressor  upon  other 
denominations  the  moment  he  decently  exercises  this  right, 
is  an  outrage  upon  common  sense. 

The  author  of  "  Miscellanies "  was  censured  by  the 
"Layman"  and  "Cyprian"  as  an  aggressor,  because  he 
bitterly  inveighed  against  an  Episcopalian  for  exercising,  in 
the  most  unexceptionable  mode,  the  right  which  you  concede 
to  him,  "  to  publish  his  peculiar  sentiments."  The  author 
of  Miscellanies  was  deemed  an  unjustifiable  aggressor,  be- 
cause, in  a  stj^le  of  invective  and  ridicule,  he  attacked  the 
principles  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  newspapers. 

When  a  writer  publishes  animadversions  on  the  erroneous 
principles  of  any  religious  denomination,  in  pointed  addresses 
to  them,  or  in  pamphlets  inviting  general  perusal,  he  may  be 
considered  as  courting  controversy.  Yet  if  his  reasoning  be 
candid,  and  his  style  temperate  and  decent,  he  cannot  on  your 
principles  be  deemed  censurable.  You  maintain,  in  the 
strongest  language,  the  duty  of  earnestly  contending  for  the 
faith.  You  maintain,  that  in  this  world  of  error  and  sin, 
religious  controversy,  or  a  comparison  between  the  "  con- 
flicting claims "  to  that  truth  which  "if  we  reject,  we  seal 
our  perdition,"  becomes  an  imperious  duty.  You  concede 
also  to  all  denominations  the  right  to  defend  their  peculiar 
tenets.  Yet  the  moment  any  denomination  publishes  a  book 
in  illustration  or  defence  of  its  peculiar  principles,  it  is  to  be 
considered,  according  to  your  reasoning,  as  a  wanton  aggres- 
sion on   the   peaceful   domains  of  others !     This   doctrine 

4 


38  hobart's  apology 

changes  even  public  confessions  of  faith,  and  formulas  of  re- 
ligious instruction  and  devotion,  into  the  darts  and  spears  of 
contention.  Mutual  aggression  and  attack  among  Christians 
unavoidably  result  from  the  maintenance  of  their  respective 
principles.  If  your  reasoning  be  just,  the  Episcopal  Churchwas 
long  since  atttacked,  and  mj^ publications  were  strictly  defensive. 
The  "  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  Associate-Reformed 
church  in  North- America,"  of  which  church  you  are  a  dis- 
tinguished minister,  was  published  several  years  before  my 
books,  under  your  most  solemn  sanction  and  superintendence. 
In  this  constitution,*  "the  distinction  of  superior  and  inferior 
clergy,"  a  distinction  which  prevails  among  Episcopalians, 
and  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  their  church,  is  styled 
"  highly  unscriptural  and  anti-Christian. "t  Will  not  your 
reasoning  against  me,  which  you  advance  with  so  much  con- 
fidence, and  which  you  seem  to  think  is  for  ever  to  silence 
me,  recoil  upon  yourself?  You  assert,  "  it  is  the  dictate  of 
common  sense,  that  if  an  author  print  and  publish  severe  re- 
flections upon  an}^  body  of  men,  he  not  only  attacks  them, 
but  does  it  in  the  most  open  manner  possible. "J  Now,  you 
sir,  and  the  Associate-Reformed  Synod,  have  "  printed  and 
published  severe  reflections  "  upon  Episcopalians.  You  have 
styled  their  ministry  "  unscriptural  and  anti-Christian." 
What  apology  can  you  make  but  the  one  which  you  put  in 
my  mouth  ?  "  You  have  no  right,  sir,  to  be  offended  with 
any  part  of  my  book.  It  is  true,  I  have  called  your  ^  minis- 
try unscriptural  and  anti-Christian,'  but  you  should  not  con- 
strue these  epithets  into  an  attack  upon  you ;  for  the  least 
candour  will  enable  you  to  perceive  that  this  book  was  pub- 

*  Art.  Church  Government,  book  i.  chap.  2.  sec.  2,  5. 

t  It  is  very  well  knovv^n  that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster, 
who  drew  up  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  denounced  and  ab- 
jured Episcopacy ;  as  did  also  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  who,  in  various  acts,  at  different  times,  solemnly  condemned  it 
as  unfounded  in  scripture,  as  a  popish  and  wicked  hierarchy.  ^ 

X  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  91. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  "39 

lished  for  the  use  of  our  own  connections."  No,  sir,  this 
apology  will  not  do.  For,  to  apply  still  your  own  language, 
Episcopalians  will  not  be  "  sent  home  perfectly  satisfied  to 
b*e  denounced  as  having  an  '  unscriptural  and  anti-Christian ' 
ministr}'^,  so  often  as  the  zealous  "  Dr.  Mason,  or  the  Asso- 
ciate-Reformed Synod,  may  "  judge  it  conducive  to  the 
edification  of  their  own  particular  friends."  Do  not  misun- 
derstand me.  It  is  not  my  design  to  charge  you  with  an 
attack  upon  Episcopalians  in  the  publication  of  that  book  ; 
but  I  have  promised  to  make  the  weapons  which  joxa  have 
aimed  at  me  recoil  upon  yourself,  and  you  must  excuse  me 
if  I  neither  forget  nor  violate  my  promise.  I  appeal  to  our 
candid  readers,  whether  the  reasoning  which  proves  that  my 
books  for  the  use  of  Episcopalians  are  an  attack  upon  other 
denominations,  does  not  also  prove  that  the  constitution  and 
standards  of  your  own  church  were  an  attack  upon  Episco- 
palians, This  "  constitution "  (it  may  be  said)  is  not  the 
work  of  an  individual,  but  of  the  Synod.  But  the  number 
and  respectability  of  the  persons  who  published  the  book 
only  aggravate  the  attack,  which,  according  to  your  mode  of 
reasoning,  is  contained  in  it.  This  work,  however,  was  cer- 
tainly published  under  your  superintendence.  At  any  rate, 
I  am  under  no  apprehension  that  you  will  disclaim  any  posi- 
tions advanced  in  it. 

But  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  series  of  '^  Letters  "  which  yoxi 
published  on  "  Frequent  Communion."  From  these  letters 
(page  89)  I  extract  the  following  :  "  We  reject  in  a  mass  the 
corruptions  of  popery,  and  of  her  ape,  prelacy."^  We  re- 
nounce the  religious  observance  of  Christmas^  Epiphany^ 
Easter^  Ascension^  &c.  and  the  festivals  in  honour  of  a  troop 
of  saints  and  saintesses,  as  superstitious  and  inconsistent  with 
gospel  worship,  how  graceful  soever  to  the  anti-Christian 
Calendar."  Is  it  possible  to  speak  of  the  institutions  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  terms  of  greater  contempt }    Now,  this 

*  Prelacy  is  the  term  by  which  Presbyterian  writers  frequently  desig- 
nate Episcopacy. 


40  hobart's  apology 

language  you  proclaimed  to  the  public  in  your  Letters  pub- 
lished in  1798.  And  my  Companions  "  for  the  Altar,"  and 
for  the  "  Festivals  and  Fasts,"  were  published  in  1804. 
Should  you  not  blush  at  your  attempt  to  fix  on  me  the  charge 
of  aggression .'' 

I  have  also  perused  a  missionary  sermon,  entitled,  ''  The 
Triumph  of  the  Gospel,"  preached  some  years  ago  before 
the  New-York  Missionary  Society.  In  this  sermon  I  find 
(at  page  21)  the  following  passage:  ^'Ecclesiastical  digni- 
taries ^  spiritual  lords,  and  all  the  pageantry  of  the  hierarchy 
in  its  various  modifications^  which  have  debased  the  gospel, 
and  metamorphosed  the  kingdom  of  Christ  to  a  kingdom  of 
this  world,  will  be  finally  trampled  in  the  dustj  and  despised 
by  Christians.''^  Now,  sir,  this  sermon  was  preached  before 
the  appearance  of  my  "  Companion  for  the  Altar."  And 
what  is  the  purport  of  the  sentence  above  quoted  ?  Among 
"  ecclesiastical  dignitaries "  bishops  are  evidently  included. 
A  dignitary  is  "  a  clergyman  advanced  above  the  rank  of  a 
parochial  yjries^."*  A  bishop  ranks  above  a  priest,  and  is, 
therefore,  a  dignitary.  If  by  the  hierarchy  was  meant  only 
the  papacy,  why  does  the  sentence  run — ''  the  hierarchy  in 
its  various  modifications?^^  Episcopacy  is  surely  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  hierarchy.  By  this  name  you  distinguish  it."! 
Bishops  and  Episcopacy  then,  "  which  have  debased  the 
gospelj  will  be  finally  trampled  in  the  dust.,  and  despised  by 
Christians  !"  Let  us  apply  to  this  passage  your  reasoning  : 
"  It  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense,"  you  saj^,  "  that  if  an 
autlior  print  and  publish  severe  reflections  upon  any  body  of 
men,  he  not  only  attacks  them,  but  does  it  in  the  most  open 
manner  possible  !"  Now,  a  venerable  divine  of  this  city 
preached  and  published  a  sermon  containing  severe  reflections 
upon  Episcopalians,  stating,  in  terms  too  evident  to  be  mis- 

*  Johnson. 

f  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  101.  When  the  adversaries  of  Episcopacy 
mean  to  express  their  contempt  for  it,  they  call  it  the  hierarchy,  the 
prelacy. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  41 

taken,  that  bishops  and  Episcopacy  ("  ecclesiastical  dignita- 
ries," "  the  hierarchy  in  its  various  modifications,")  "  had 
debased  the  gospel,"  and  "  would  be  finally  trampled  in  the 
dust,  and  despised  by  Christians."  And  the  Missionary  So- 
ciety of  New- York  requested  and  sanctioned  the  publication 
of  this  sermon.  Here,  then,  according  to  your  principle,  was 
an  "■  attack  in  the  most  open  manner  possible  "  upon  Epis- 
copalians, by  a  venerable  divine,  and  by  the  New- York  Mis- 
sionary Society,  consisting  of  Presbyterian  divines  and  lay- 
men. I  pray  not  to  be  misunderstood.  I  mean  no  reflection 
nor  censure  on  the  New-York  Missionarj^  Society.  The 
clergyman  who  preached  the  sermon  to  which  I  have  alluded, 
for  his  learning  and  talents,  his  exemplary  piety,  commands 
my  veneration :  For  his  uniformly  kind  deportment  to  me, 
my  gratitude  is  due  to  him.  If  he  deemed  the  sentiment 
which  I  have  quoted  just,  and  the  publication  of  it  neces- 
sary to  the  edification  of  Christians,  he  possessed  the  right, 
it  was  his  duty  to  preach  and  publish  it.  It  is  farthest  from 
my  intention  to  censure  him  for  doing  so,  or  the  Missionary 
Society  for  sanctioning  the  publication.  In  order  to  resist, 
however,  the  charge  of  aggression,  I  am  compelled,  reluc- 
tantly, to  prove,  that  if  your  principle  he  correct^  Episcopa- 
lians were  attacked  before  the  appearance  of  my  "  Com- 
panion for  the  Altar." 

You  complain  very  bitterly  of  the  conduct  of  an  Episco- 
pal clergyman,  who,  in  a  sermon  preached  several  years 
since  at  a  public  ordination,  denounced,  as  you  conceive,  the 
non-Episcopal  clergy.  It  is  with  the  deepest  regret  I  am 
compelled  to  maintain,  that,  if  you  and  yo\n  brethren  have 
just  cause  of  complaint  against  the  sermon  of  the  Episcopal 
clergyman,  we  have  the  same  cause  of  complaint  against  the 
sermon  which  I  have  just  quoted.  When  a  person  wishes  to 
vent  his  indignation  against  any  object,  and  to  sink  it  into 
contempt,  he  says  that  it  should  be  "  trampled  in  the  dust," 
it  "should  be  despisedy  And  this  is  the  sentence  pro- 
nounced on  Episcopacy,  which  is  a  modification  of  the  hier- 

4* 


42  hobart's  apology 

archy,  by  a  non-Episcopal  clergyman,  in  a  printed  discourse. 
But  (you  say)  the  non-Episcopal  clergy  were  invited  to  hear 
the  sermon  which  gave  them  so  much  offence,  and  this  cir- 
cumstance rendered  the  attack  an  outrage !  There  is  no 
recollection  of  any  such  invitation  having  been  given.  But 
there  was  notice  given  in  the  newspapers  of  the  preaching 
of  the  missionary  sermon  to  which  I  allude ;  and  surely 
Episcopalians  as  well  as  others  were  at  least  indirectly  in- 
vited to  attend.  Where,  then,  the  difference  in  the  two 
cases  }  But  I  disclaim  all  wish  or  intention  of  fixing  on  the 
worth}'-  and  venerable  preacher  of  the  missionary  sermon  any 
design  either  to  "  attack"  or  to  "  outrage"  Episcopalians. 
He  honestly  believed  the  sentiments  he  uttered.  I  do  not 
presume  to  censure  him  for  inculcating  what  he  doubtless 
esteemed  an  important  truth,  and  a  subject  of  congratula- 
tion to  all  who  looked  for  the  purity  and  glory  of  the  mil- 
lennial church.  But  it  really  appears  to  me  that  the  two 
cases  above  referred  to  are  exactly  parallel.  The  latter  is 
rather  the  stronger  case.  For  the  missionary  sermon  re- 
flecting on  Episcopalians  was  not  only  preached,  but  publish- 
ed. And,  therefore,  according  to  you,  as  these  "  severe 
reflections"  were  ''  printed  and  published,"  they  were  not 
only  an  "  attack,"  but  an  attack  "  in  the  most  open  manner 
possible."  The  deductions  which  bear  hard  upon  the 
preacher  of  the  missionary  sermon  come  from  yourself. 

Ill-fated  Episcopalians  !  your  Episcopacy  may  be  branded 
as  ''  unscriptural  and  anti-Christian  ;"  your  bishops  held  up 
to  detestation,  as  "lords  in  God's  heritage."*  Your  hier- 
archy, charged  with  having  "  debased  the  gospel,"  with 
being  "the  ape  of  popery,"  maybe  consigned  to  infamy  and 
destruction,  "to  be  trampled  in  the  dust,  and  despised  b}'- 
Christians."  All  this  ye  must  bear  patiently  and  silently. 
For  the  moment  any  one  of  you  lifts  up  his  voice  in  lan- 
guage however  decent,  to  defend  your  hierarchy,  to  show  to 

*  So  styled  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  a  Calvinistic  Church 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  43 

his  brethren  the  guilt  and  danger  of  separating  from  it,  of 
despising  it,  and  trampling  it  in  the  dust — a  hue  and  cry  is 
raised  against  him — to  break  his  spirit — to  crush  his  resolu- 
tion— to  blast  his  influence — to  drown  for  ever  his  remon- 
strances ! 

Believe  me,  sir,  I  shall  still  escape  "  the  unpopularity  of 
being  the  aggressor."  And  I  am  principally  anxious  to  es- 
cape it,  because  I  do  not  deserve  it,  and  am  deeply  conscious 
that  the  least  idea  of  aggression  was  farthest  from  my 
thoughts  or  wishes.  At  the  same  time,  I  freely  declare, 
that  I  can  see  no  impropriety  in  any  individual  remarking 
with  freedom,  plainness,  and  force,  on  what  he  maj^  deem 
the  erroneous  tenets  of  any  body  of  men.  If  his  strictures  be 
decent  and  candid,  it  would,  in  my  judgment,  be  unjust  to 
affix  any  odium  upon  him  for  the  exercise  of  that  right  of 
investigation  which,  on  all  subjects,  is  the  hand-maid  and  the 
nurse  of  truth.  I  certainly  deem  the  books  I  published  fair 
objects  of  remark  and  animadversion.  I  concede  the  right 
of  animadversion  in  its  full  extent,  restrained  only  by  decen- 
cy and  candour.  But  I  solemnly  protest  against  being  con- 
demned, even  before  my  opinions  are  examined,  by  being 
denounced  as  a  wanton  and  unprovoked  aggressor. 

But  the  inquiry  has  sometimes  been  made,  and  not  by 
non-Episcopalians  only — "  Why,  in  order  to  the  defence  of 
the  principles  of  your  own  church,  should  you  deem  it 
necessary  to  animadvert  on  the  principles  of  others  .''  Con- 
cede to  you  the  right  and  the  duty  of  proving  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Episcopal  ministry ;  why  should  you  insist 
that  non-Episcopalians  have  not  a  valid  ministry  .^"  Now, 
against  such  reasoning  I  can  shelter  myself  under  a  principle 
which  you  kindly  furnish  me,  that  ^'  truth  can  admit  of  no 
compromise  with  error ^  nor  does  charity  require  it."  In 
maintaining  certain  principles  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  there 
can  be,  there  ought  to  be,  no  compromise  with  the  errors 
that  are  opposed  to  these  principles.  I  could  not  maintain 
the  divine  authority  of  the  Episcopal  ministry,  without  de- 


44 

nying  the  validity  of  a  non-Episcopal  ministry ;  for  it  is  an 
essential  principle  in  the  Episcopal  ministr}"  that  Bishops,  as 
an  order  superior  to  Presbyters,  have  alone  the  power  of 
ordination.  Of  course  a  ministry  not  Episcopally  ordained 
cannot  be  a  valid  ministry.  In  several  of  the  prayers  in  the 
Offices  of  Ordination  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  asserted, 
that  God,  by  "  his  divine  providence  and  by  his  Holy  Spirit, 
appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers  in  his  Church ;"  and 
^'  Bishops,"  "  Priests,"  and  ^'  Deacons"  are  ranked  among 
the  orders  thus  divinely  appointed.  That  she  acknowledges 
only  Episcopal  ordination  as  valid,  is  evident  also  from  her 
uniform  and  inviolate  practice.  She  does  not  receive  any 
persons  into  standing  as  ministers  who  have  not  been  Episco- 
pally ordained.  Whence  this  restriction  if  ordination  by 
Presbyters  is  valid  ?  What  is  ordination }  Not  the  mere 
mode  of  admission  to  the  privilege  of  officiating  among  some 
particular  denomination  of  Christians.  It  is  the  conferring  of 
the  ministerial  commission  generally.  Who  confers  this  com- 
mission among  Presbyterians  .^  The  Presbyters.  Does  the 
Church  of  England,  or  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America, 
acknowledge  this  ordination  ?  No ;  for  these  churches 
never  receive  a  Presbyterian  minister  until  he  has  been 
Episcopally  ordained.*  If  they  considered  that  his  ordina- 
tion by  Presbyters  had  conferred  on  him  a  valid  ministerial 

*  Some  few  instances  to  the  contrary  in  the  Church  of  England,  at  the 
outset  of  the  Reformation,  cannot  invalidate  a  general  and  uniform  prac- 
tice since  that  period.  During  the  contentions  and  troubles  of  the  Re- 
formation, that  some  few  irregularities  occurred,  is  surely  not  surprising. 
If  the  few  instances  of  some  Presbyterian  divines  creeping  into  livings, 
by  the  aid  and  support  o{ polilical  leaders,  would  prove  that  the  Church 
of  England  at  the  Reformation  did  not  insist  on  Episcopal  ordination,  the 
instances  that  occurred  during  the  same  period  of  some  laymen  holding 
livings,  would  prove  that  the  Church  did  not  insist  on  any  ordination  at 
all !  Long  and  uniform  practice  has  settled  it  into  a  principle  in  the 
Church  of  England  (and  it  is  a  principle  which  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  has  never  violated)  that  none  are  received  as  ministers  but  those 
who  "  have  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  In  regard,  there 
fore,  to  the  present  principles  of  these  churches  there  can  be  no  dispute 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  45 

commission,  would  it  not  be  absurd,  would  it  not  be  a  solemn 
mockery  for  the  Bishop  to  treat  him  as  if  he  had  never  re- 
ceived a  ministerial  commission,  as  if  he  were  a  lajTuan  who 
was  a  candidate  for  orders,  and  proceed  to  ordain  him  ? 
These  principles  with  respect  to  ordination,  the  Episcopal 
Church  has  the  same  right  to  maintain  which  other  denomi- 
nations have  to  maintain  various  principles  offensive  to  her. 
If  any  person  will  point  out  to  me  b}'^  what  method  I  can 
maintain  that  Bishops  alone  have  the  power  of  ordination, 
and  at  the  same  time  concede  this  power  to  Presbyters,  he 
shall  have  my  warmest  thanks.  He  will  save  me  from  the 
painful  necessity  of  holding  opinions  offensive  to  many  per- 
sons for  whose  talents,  piety  and  zeal  I  cherish  the  highest 
veneration. 

But  further.  It  is  the  solemn  duty  of  every  minister  to 
explain  to  his  people  the  sin  of  schism ,  and  to  guard  them 
against  it.  It  is  considered  by  the  Apostle  as  a  "  carnal" 
sin  (1  Cor.  iii.  3,  &c.)  Episcopalians  pray  in  their  Liturgy 
to  be  delivered  from  it.  Their  ministers,  therefore,  are 
surely  bound  to  explain  to  them  in  what  the  sin  consists. 
Now,  the  guilt  of  the  sin  of  schism  may  in  various  ways  be 
incurred.  But,  I  presume  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when 
Vv^e  separate  from  the  duly  authorized  ministry,  and  com- 
mune with  those  who  are  not  lawful  ministers,  we  are  guilty 
of  this  sin.  On  Episcopal  principles,  lawful  ministers  are 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.  Bishops  alone  possess  the 
power  of  ordination.  Of  course  it  necessarily  results,  that 
none  can  be  esteemed  "  lawful  ministers"  who  "  have  not 
had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."*  Communing 
with  ministers  not  thus  duly  authorized  is,  therefore,  on 
Episcopal  principles,  to  commit  the  sin  of  schism.  And  I 
would  ask  the  liberal  Episcopalian,  or  any  other  advocate 
for  that  modern  liberality  which  startles  at  the  very  idea  of 
opposing  error,  in  what  wa};^  an  Episcopal  minister  is  to 
explain  to  his  people  the  sin  of  schism,  and  to  guard  them 
*  Preface  to  the  Ordination  Offices  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 


46  hobart's  apology 

against  it,  without  warning  them  against  separating  from 
their  "  lawful"  pastors,  and  communing  with  those  who 
have  not  received  "  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."* 
All  that  in  this  case  can  reasonably  be  required  of  the  Epis- 
copal minister  is,  that  he  should  convey  his  warnings  in  a 
decent  style,  and  through  a  channel  the  least  calculated  to 
irritate  or  offend.  Now,  sir,  will  you  assert  that  the  style 
of  my  admonitions  was  either  intemperate  or  indecent  ?  And 
if  a  manual  of  instruction  and  devotion  designed  for  Episco- 
palians be  an  improper  channel  through  which  to  address 
them  on  their  peculiar  principles,  will  you  be  so  good  as  to 
inform  me  what  is  a  proper  channel  ?  You  affect  to  ex- 
press your  surprise  that  a  form  of  preparation  for  the  holy 
communion  should  be  made  the  vehicle  of  these  sentiments. 
But  on  the  principles  of  all  the  Presbyterian  churches,  the 
sacraments  may  not  be  "  dispensed  by  any  but  b}^  a  minister 
of  the  word,  lawfully  ordained. "|  Was  it  not  then  neces- 
sary, that  a  work  on  the  holy  communion  should  declare 
who  are  ministers  "lawfully  ordained"  to  dispense  this 
sacrament ;  that  it  should  warn  Christians  from  receiving  it 
from  those  who  were  not  "  lawfully  ordained  .?" 

You  express  also,  though  in  an  indirect  manner,  your 
surprise,  that  "  the  wholesome  admonition"  concerning 
those  who  are  lawfully  ordained  to  dispense  the  Lord's  sup- 
per should  be  contained  in  a  meditation  for  the  evening 
before  receiving  that  holy  ordinance.  It  was  my  intention 
to  comprise  this  "  admonition"  in  the  meditation  for  Satur- 

*  The  Episcopal  Minister  does  no  more  than  every  consistent  Presby- 
terian is  compelled  to  do.  For  if,  as  the  Westminster  Divines  and  the 
Constitution  and  Standards  of  your  Church  assert,  "  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment is  the  true  and  only  one  v^hich  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  pre- 
scribed in  his  word,"*  and  the  orders  of  the  Episcopal  ministry  "  un- 
scriptural  and  anti- Christian;"  they  who  hear  the  word  or  receive  the 
ordinances  from  this  "  unscriptural  and  anti-Christian"  ministry,  must 
be  guilty  of  schism. 

t  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  4.     Larger  Catechism,  176. 

*  Constitution  of  the  Associate-Reformed  Church,  p.  47.'5. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  47 

day  morning.  I  found,  however,  that  this  would  have 
extended  that  meditation  to  an  unusual  and  very  dispropor- 
tionate length.  And  as  the  preceding  part  of  the  work  was 
printed  off,  I  was  compelled  to  place  this  "  admonition"  in 
the  meditation  for  Saturday  evening.  Though,  in  the  order 
of  the  meditations,  it  might  have  probabty  filled  a  more  judi- 
cious place,  yet  I  cannot  admit  that  its  present  situation  is 
wholly  improper.  It  cannot  be  improper  for  a  communicant, 
even  on  the  very  point  of  approaching  the  communion,  to 
pause  and  inquire — Am  I  about  to  receive  it  from  ^'  a  minis- 
ter of  the  word,  lawfully  ordained"  to  dispense  it  ?  In  the 
prayer  annexed  to  this  meditation  for  Saturday  evening,  the 
communicant  prays  that  "  in  the  exercise  of  lively  penitence 
and  faith  he  may  humbly  and  thankfully  partake  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  church ;  and  thus  maintaining  communion 
with  it,  derive  from  Jesus,  its  divine  head,  pardon,  grace, 
consolation,  triumph,  everlasting  glory."*  He  who  sincere- 
ly offers  up  this  supplication,  will  not  be  in  an  unfit  temper 
to  rise  in  the  morning  and  prepare  for  receiving  the  sacred 
pledges  of  his  Saviour's  love. 

What  relation  has  the  story  of  Mr.  Wright  to  the  present 
discussion  ?  or  how  does  it  affect  its  merits  ^  The  direct 
assertion,  that  our  defence  of  Episcopacy  had  been  indecent 
or  intemperate,  could  be  met  and  immediately  refuted. f 
Indirect  assertion  would  be  equally  effectual  in  exciting 
clamour  against  us,  and  would  in  some  measure  shelter  our 
accuser  from  the  charge  of  aspersion.  Your  representation 
of  what  you  conceive  was  very  intemperate  conduct  in  this 
Episcopal  clergyman,  tends  to  crush  the  innocent  with  the 

*  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  206. 

t  The  appeal  may  be  made  to  every  candid  person,  whether  in  the 
"  Companion  for  the  Altar,"  and  in  the  "  Festivals  and  Fasts,"  obnox- 
ious as  may  be  the  opinions,  there  is  any  intemperance  or  indecency  of 
style.  If  in  the  "  Episcopal  controversy"  a  higher  tone  of  remonstrance 
has  been  assumed,  it  is  fully  justified  by  the  flood  of  invective,  sarcasm, 
and  ridicule  poured  forth  by  the  opponent  of  Episcopacy  in  that  contro- 
versy ? 


48  hobart's  apology 

guilty — to  fix  on  myself  and  other  recent  advocates  of  Epis- 
copacy, an  odium  which  we  do  not  merit ;  and  to  rouse 
against  us  an  indignant  clamour,  which  will  not  listen  to  the 
voice  of  sober  argument  and  remonstrance.  You  state  that 
this  Mr.  Wright  "  declared  to  the  faces  of  some  of  the  most 
venerable  ministers  in  this  city,  that  all  clergymen  not  Epis- 
copally  ordained,  are  imposters  ;  their  commissions  forgeries  ; 
and  their  sacraments  blasphemy."  But  is  it  not  possible  that 
the  indignant  feelings  of  those  who  heard  Mr.  Wright  deliver 
sentiments  obnoxious  to  them  may  have  somewhat  exagge- 
rated his  language  ;  or  that  at  this  distance  of  time  it  may 
be  unintentionally  misstated  ?  I  can  only  assert  that  the 
Episcopal  clergy  who  heard  him  cannot  recollect  that  he 
used  the  very  strong  expressions  which  you  impute  to  him. 
It  seems,  as  you  assert,  my  books  are  a  continuance  of  this 
same  system  of  attack;  the  same  "  asj9e?-^ons  "*  are  "re- 
peated" by  me,  "  though  in  a  more  decent  language" — that 
is,  I  am  still  a  calumniator,  though  rather  more  decent  in  my 
"  aspersions  "  than  Mr.  Wright !  Sir,  I  protest  against  this 
conduct  as  unjust,  uncandid,  and,  I  may  add,  (from  its  inju- 
rious tendency  on  my  own  reputation  and  feelings)  cruel. 
The  sermon  of  Mr.  Wright  must  have  been  preached  several 
years  before  I  was  in  orders — and  though  some  slight  rumours 
of  it  recently  reached  me,  yet  you  are  the  first  person  from 
whom  I  have  received  a  statement  of  its  contents,  or  of  the 
circumstances  attending  its  delivery.  How,  then,  could  I  be 
guilty  of  wilfully  continuing  an  "  attack,"  which  I  was 
ignorant  had  ever  been  made  }  How  can  I  be  justly  an- 
swerable for  the  intemperate  conduct  and  language  of  a 
person  whom  I  never  knew,  and  with  whom  I  never  had  any 
kind  of  intercourse  t 

If,  sir,  as  you  insinuate,  there  has  been  any  system  of 

attack  organized  against  non-Episcopalians,  I  have  not  been 

privy  to  it.     M}^  books  have  no  share  in  it.     I  have  the 

satisfaction  to  know  that  my  Diocesan  approves  of  the  senti- 

*  Observe,  sir,  "  aspersions"  are  calumnies. 


\ 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  49 

ments  contained  in  those  books ;  but  neither  he  nor  my 
^brethren  knew  anj^  thing  of  them  until  they  saw  them  in 
print ;  nor  are  they  privy  to  the  contents  of  these  letters. 
And  yet  I  can  see  no  impropriety,  when  the  church  is 
assailed,  in  her  friends  uniting  to  defend  her.  I  repeat  the 
solemn  declaration  which  I  have  made  in  the  preface  to  the 
"  Collection  of  Essays  "  which  you  are  now  reviewing,  that 
"  it  never  occurred  to  me  that  the  publication  of  those  books 
would  be  the  cause  of  offence  to  others."*  They  only  con- 
tain principles  which  have  been  maintained  and  repeatedly 
published  by  eminent  divines. 

If,  sir,  you  would  honour  with  a  perusal  the  Life  of  Dr. 
Johnson,  the  first  President  of  King's,  now  Columbia  Col- 
lege, you  would  find  perhaps  some  facts  that  would  probably 
hold  you  "  in  suspense  between  the  gaze  of  astonishment 
and  the  swell  of  indignation!"  Dr.  Cutler,  the  President 
of  Yale  College,  Dr.  Johnson,  and  several  of  the  most  emi- 
nent clergy  in  Connecticut,  were  induced,  at  a  period  when 
the  Episcopal  Church  was  scarcely  known  in  the  state,  to 
examine  the  subject  of  Episcopacy ;  and  finally,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  most  powerful  influence,  embraced  the  principles 
for  which  j^ou  denounce  me,  and  went  to  England  for  Epis- 
copal ordination.  And  yet,  from  the  style  of  your  address 
to  me,  one  would  suppose  that  I  was  the  first  who  in  this 
country  ever  had  the  presumption  to  urge  such  "  extravagant 
and  arrogant  pretensions."  These  principles  always  have 
had  their  advocates,  and  will  continue  to  be  defended,  any 

*  My  republishing  the  «  Essays  on  Episcopacy"  which  appeared  in  the 
Albany- Centinel  in  a  separate  volume,  with  notes  and  comments,  was  a 
defensive  measure.  The  Author  of  Miscellanies  had  attacked  Episcopal 
principles  in  the  newspapers.  As  his  essays  were  a  continued  series  of 
bold  and  concise  assertions,  completely  to  detect  and  to  answer  them  by 
any  thing  like  reasoning,  required  his  opponents  to  enter  on  an  extensive 
field.  And  as  the  printers  at  length  closed  their  papers  to  the  discus- 
sion, many  of  the  assertions  of  the  Author  of  Miscellanies  remained 
unanswered,  which  it  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  notice  in  a  separate 
publication. 

5 


50  hobart's  apology 

thing  you  or  others  can  say  to  the  contrary  nothwithstanding. 
But  the  most  extraordinary  declaration  relative  to  this 
"  attack,"  as  you  are  pleased  to  term  it,  is  the  following : 
"A  circumstance  which  rendered  this  attack  an  outrage,  was 
the  care  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  to  circulate  notice  of  the 
ordination,  and  their  solicitude  for  the  attendance  of  their 
non-Episcopal  brethren !"  Now,  sir,  before  you  hazarded 
this  most  serious  charge  against  the  Episcopal  clergy — a 
charge  which,  fixing  on  them  an  "  outrage,"  would  prove 
that  they  possessed  neither  the  mild  forbearance  of  Chris- 
tians, the  dignity  of  clergymen,  nor  the  manners  of  gentlemen, 
should  you  not  have  paused,  and  ascertained,  beyond  the 
possibility  of  mistake,  several  important  particulars  ?  Are 
you  satisfied  on  good  authority  that  "  the  Episcopal  clergy 
expressed  a  solicitude  for  the  attendance  of  their  non-Epis- 
copal brethren  ?"  I  have  ascertained  from  the  officiating 
Bishop  and  the  only  two  Episcopal  clergy  now  resident  in 
this  city  who  attended  the  ordination,  that  they  knew  nothing 
of  any  invitation  having  been  given  to  the  non-Episcopal 
clergy,  or  of  any  solicitude  having  been  expressed  for  their 
attendance.  But  admit  the  fact :  are  you  able  to  prove, 
have  you  any  satisfactory  reason  to  believe,  that  the  Episco- 
pal clergy  w^re  previously  acquainted  with  the  nature  of  Mr. 
Wright's  sermon,  or  with  the  obnoxious  passages  to  which 
you  refer  ?  You  can  neither  prove,  nor  have  you  any  satis- 
factory reason  to  believe  this  circumstance — and  the  truth  of 
this  only  can  authorize  you  in  the  serious  charge  you  have 
brought  against  the  Episcopal  clergy,  and  rescue  it  from  the 
imputation  of  being  more  unjust  and  indecorous  than  the 
conduct  which  you  ascribe  to  them.  I  am  authorized  to 
assert,  that  the  Episcopal  clergy  were  wholly  ignorant  what 
would  be  the  contents  of  Mr.  Wright's  sermon,  and  the  style 
in  which  he  would  deem  it  proper  to  convey  his  observa- 
tions.— "  Alas — alas  " — "  Pudet — ^pudet  "* — Were  I  disposed 
to  retort,  might  I  not  lament,  that  persons  who  make  such 
*  Your  favourite  expressions. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  51 

pretensions  to  extraordinary  piety,  who  claim  to  themselves 
the  exclusive  title  of  "  evangelical,"  should  forget  the  first 
dictate  of  a  truly  evangelical  spirit,  and  inconsiderately  ren- 
der themselves  liable  to  the  charge  of  committing  an  outrage 
against  the  very  individuals  on  whom  they  attempt  to  fix  this 
crime  ?  No,  sir  ;  no — I  make  no  such  retort.  I  cast  no 
imputation  of  wilful  misrepresentation  or  perversion.  There 
has  been  some  misapprehension — some  want  of  recollection 
— and  more  inconsiderate  zeal  in  this  business — Let  it  be 
covered  with  the  mantle  of  charity. 


LETTER   VI. 
Sir, 

The  charge  of  aggression  I  have  thus  proved  utterly 
unfounded. 

Your  other  charges  may  be  thus  summed  up. 

That  I  maintain,  that  communion  with  the  Episcopal 
priesthood  is  a  condition  of  salvation  which  is  not  only  indis- 
pensable on  the  part  of  man  (in  which  sense  I  apply  the  word 
indispensable,)  but  which  God  himself  will  not  dispense 
with ;  and  that  "  the  simple  fact  of  separation  from  the 
Episcopal  priesthood  "  renders  all  repentance  and  faith  una- 
vailing^ "  mars  the  religion  of  non-Episcopalians,  and  renders 
it  stark  naught !" — and  that  thus  I  make  the  "  only  alterna- 
tive. Episcopacy  or  Perdition  ! !  "* 

That  I  "  make  particular  views  of  external  order  the 
hinging  point  of  salvation  "j* — that  I  "  place  the  external 
order  of  the  Church  upon  a  level  with  the  merits  of  our 
Lord  Jesus,  in  the  article  of  acceptance  before  God  ;"J 
that  "  with  respect  to  non-Episcopalians  I  make  Episco- 
pacy of  primary^  and  faith  in  the  Redeemer  of  secondary 
importance  ;";];  and  that  I  maintain  that  '■'■  faith  in  Christ  is 
impossible  where  there  is  no  communion  with  the  Bishop. "!|] 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  94,  95.  f  p.  98.  X  p.  99. 


52  hobart's  apology 

Now,  sir,  before  you  can  be  "  justified  in  uttering  a  sylla- 
ble which  only  looks  towards  conclusions "  which  hold  me 
up  as  a  monster  of  arrogance  and  impiety,  unfit  to  be  tole- 
rated among  Christians,  you  ought  to  be  not  only  "perfectly 
certain  of  your  premises,"  but  that  your  conclusions  also  are 
fairly  and  legitimately  drawn. 

I  utterly  disclaim  the  sentiments  you  impute  to  me. 

I  utterly  deny  the  truth  of  your  charges. 

I  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  you  support  them  by  partial 
and  false  views  of  my  opinions — by  uncandidly  torturing 
them  to  an  extreme — and  by  illogical  deductions  which  a  just 
reasoner  should  blush  to  make,  and  a  candid  reasoner  should 
scorn  to  enlist  into  his  service. 

I  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  the  same  uncandid  methods 
would  attach  the  same  odium  to  your  own  principles  ;  and 
that  I  lay  no  greater  stress  on  external  order j  on  communion 
with  the  church  through  its  ministry  and  ordinances^  than  the 
standards  and  confessions  of  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  churches 
will  warrant. 

To  prove  these  points,  I  pledge  myself.  Is  there  a  can- 
did reader  of  your  review  in  which  these  charges  against 
me  are  contained,  who  will  refuse  to  accompany  me  in  my 
vindication  .'* 

I  utterly  disclaim  the  sentiments  j^ou  impute  to  me.  I 
utterly  deny  the  truth  of  your  charges. 

Do  I  maintain  that  God  will  not  dispense  with  communion 
with  the  Episcopal  priesthood,  when  I  express  my  belief  that 
he  will  dispense  with  it  in  the  cases  of  all  those  who  do  not 
"  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state  of  separation  from 
it  ;"*  who  do  not,  through  criminal  negligence  or  wilful 
obstinacy,  contemn  the  means  of  arriving  at  the  truth,  and 
resist  the  light  of  conviction  }  Or  do  I  maintain  that  "  sepa- 
ration from  the  Episcopal  priesthood  renders  faith  and  repen- 
tance unavailing,  and  mars  the  religion  of  non-Episcopalians," 
when  I  express  my  belief  that  the  "  humble,  the  penitent, 
*  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  203. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  53 

and  obedient,"  who  reject  the  authorized  ministry,  not 
"  negligently  or  wilfully, ^^  but  through  "  involuntary  error,"  will 
still  have  "  mercy"  extended  to  them  ?*  Am  I  guilty  then 
of  making  the  "  only  alternative.  Episcopacy  or  Perdition  ?" 
When  my  principles  thus  extend  mercy  to  many  who  reject 
that  ''  external  order"  which  I  believe  has  the  sanction  of 
divine  authority,  do  I  make  "  external  order  the  hinging 
point  of  salvation  ?"  Do  I  "  place  this  order  on  a  level 
with  the  merits  of  Christ,"  when  the  principle  which  I  lay 
at  the  foundation  of  my  work  is,  "  that  we  are  saved  from 
the  guilt  and  dominion  of  sin  by  the  divine  merits  and  grace 
of  a  crucified  Redeemer  ?"!  Is  my  making  (according  to 
you)  "  faith  in  Christ  of  secondary,  and  Episcopacy  of  pri- 
mary importance,"  consistent  with  your  own  declaration  of 
the  "  evangelical  strain  "  of  many  parts  of  the  book  ?  And 
while  I  expressly  acknowledge  that  the  "  humble,  the  peni- 
tent, and  obedient,"  even  though  they  should,  through  "  in- 
voluntary error,"  reject  the  authorized  ministry,  and  of 
course  the  Bishop,  will  enjoy  the  "  blessings  of  God's 
favour" — is  your  assertion  correct,  that  I  "make  faith  in 
Christ  impossible  but  through  communion  with  the  Bishop  ?" 
You  may  say  indeed,  that  I  "  flinch  from  the  consequences  of 
my  own  doctrine."  By  and  by,  I  shall  consider  this  point, 
and  show  that  you  are  as  incorrect  and  uncandid  in  deducing 
consequences  as  you  are  in  stating  opinions.  My  simple 
object  now  is  to  show  that  I  do  not  hold  the  obnoxious  opinions 
which  you  impute  to  me.  For,  to  use  your  own  language, 
I  "  am  sure  that  the  drift,  and  have  little  doubt  that  the 
design,"*^  of  your  review  "  is  to  force  plain  people  into  the 
conclusion,"  that  I  really  maintain  the  opinions  which,  by 
most  unfair  deduction  from  my  writings,  you  fix  upon  me. 

What,  according  to  your  representations,  is  the  amount  of 
my  reasonings  }     That   all  are   consigned  to    "  perdition" 
who  are  not  within  the  pale  of  my  own  church.     No  per- 
*  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  203. 

t  Preface  to  the  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  5. 

5* 


64  hobart's  apology 

sons  will  believe  that  I  am  capable  of  pronouncing  this  most 
impious  judgment,  when  they  read  the  following,  contained 
in  the  very  books  on  which  you  animadvert :  "  The  judge 
of  the  whole  earth  will  do  right.  The  grace  of  God  quick- 
ens and  animates  all  the  degenerate  children  of  Adam.  The 
mercy  of  the  Saviour  is  co-extensive  with  the  ruin  into 
which  sin  hath  plunged  mankind.  And  in  every  nation  he 
that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  of 
him."*  '^  We  presume  to  judge  no  man^  leaving  all  judg- 
ment to  that  Being  who  is  alone  qualified  to  make  allow- 
ance for  the  ignorance^  invhicible  prejudices^  i?nperfect  reason- 
iiigsj  and  mistaken  judgments  of  his  frail  creatures." "f  "  All 
men  are  in  the  hands  of  an  infinitely  merciful  and  righteous 
God,  who  will  judge  them  according  to  their  works. '^''X 
"  Though  the  institutions  of  the  Almighty  are  indispensably 
binding  upon  men,  he  is  not  himself  restricted  by  them. 
Every  benevolent  heart,  therefore,  ardently  cherishes  the 
delightful  belief  that  mercy  will  at  length  be  extended  to  all 
who  humbly  and  earnestly  seek  to  know  and  to  do  the  will  of 
their  heavenly  Master. "§  Episcopalians  maintain,  that  "in 
conformity  to  the  order  handed  down  from  the  beginning, 
Bishops  only  have  the  power  of  ordination,  and  as  a  general 
proposition  they  maintain  that  Episcopal  ministrations  only 
are  valid.  At  the  same  time  they  are  disposed  to  believe, 
that  when  any  church  cannot  obtain  the  lawful  succession, 
God,  who  '-  is  not  a  hard  master,  reaping  where  he  has  not 
sown,  and  gathering  where  he  has  not  strawed,'  will  merci- 
fully dispense  with  it.  Nay,  that  he  will  graciously  accept 
and  bless  the  ministrations  of  those  who  have  not  a  lawful 
call ;  when  the  error  is  not  chargeable  to  wilful  neglect  of 
the  means  of  information,  nor  to  obstinate  resistance  to  the 
light  of  conviction.     In  this  way  does  the  author  of  the 

*  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  202. 

t  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  60. 

X  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  204. 

§  Preface  to  the  Collection  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  p.  7. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  55 

'  Companion  for  the  Altar'  reconcile  truth  with  charity :  in 
this  way  does  he  embrace  in  the  arms  of  fraternal 
benevolence  all  who,  according  to  the  talents  bestowed  on 
them  by  their  gracious  Maker,  seek  to  know  and  to  do  his 
will."* 

Will  you  hold  sentiments  equally  charitable  with  those 
which  I  have  advanced  in  the  foregoing  extracts }  Will 
you,  "  in  the  sincerity  of  your  soul,"  cherish  the  delightful 
hope  of  that  "glorious  consummation — when  the  same  gene- 
rous zeal  for  God  and  truth,  which  too  often,  in  this  world 
of  folly  and  confusion,  sets  those  at  widest  variance  whom  the 
similitude  of  virtuous  feelings  should  the  most  unite,  shall  be 
the  cement  of  an  indissoluble  friendship ;  when  the  innume- 
rable multitude  of  all  nations,  kindreds,  and  people  (why 
should  I  not  add  of  all  sects  and  parties  })  assembled  round 
the  throne,  shall,  like  the  first  Christians,  be  of  one  soul,  and 
one  mind ;  giving  praise  with  one  consent  to  him  that  sitteth 
on  the  throne,  and  to  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  redeem 
them  by  his  blood  .?"|  No,  sir,  I  will  venture  to  say  that 
you  will  not  meet  me  on  this  broad  ground  of  charity,  which 
extends  the  favour  of  God  to  all  his  sincere  servants,  what- 
ever may  be  their  unintentional  and  involuntary  errors.  I 
will  venture  to  pledge  myself  that  anxious  as  you  are  to 
represent  me  as  hurling  to  perdition  all  who  are  not  within 
the  pale  of  my  own  church,  your  charity  will  not  take  this 
wide  range.  For,  referring  to  some  of  the  charitable  opin- 
ions which  are  above  expressed,  you  intimate,  "  that  in 
maintaining  them,  if  a  little  pressed,  I  might  perhaps  find  I 
had  no  ingenuity  to  spare."  J  Come,  sir,  press  me  on  these 
assertions.  The  public  will  soon  see  who  it  is  that  main- 
tains positions  "  arrogant,  extravagant,"  and  revolting  to 
common  sense  and  reason. 

But  you  will  say,  I  "flinch  from  the  consequences  of  my 

*  Collection  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  p.  208. 

t  Preface  to  the  Collection  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  p.  8. 

J  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  87. 


56  hobart's  apology 

own  doctrines" — "  my  concessions  are  in  diametrical  repug- 
nance to  my  arguments."* 

I  proceed,  therefore,  to  prove  that  you  support  your 
charges  by  partial  and  false  views  of  my  opinions  ;  by  un- 
candidly  torturing  them  to  an  extreme  ;  and  by  illogical 
deductions  unworthy  of  a  just  and  candid  reasoner.  I  shall 
show  that  the  same  uncandid  methods  would  attach  the  same 
odium  to  many  of  your  own  principles  on  the  subject  of 
church  communion  ;  and  that  I  lay  no  greater  stress  on  exter- 
nal order,  on  communion  with  the  church  through  its  minis- 
try and  ordinances,  than  the  standards  and  confessions  of 
faith  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  will  warrant. 

From  the  criminality  of  rejecting  that  ministry  which  has 
alone  the  seal  of  divine  authority,  I  expressly  and  repeatedly 
except  all  who  labour  under  "involuntary  error."  But  this 
"  rehef,"  you  say,  "  is  not  worth  accepting,"  because  "  the 
instances  in  which  it  would  be  substantiated,  would  be  rare 
indeed."!  And  this  position  you  establish  by  falsely  repre- 
senting me  as  confounding  together  what  are  totally  distinct, 
^^unavoidable  error,"  and  ^involuntary  error."  Unavoid- 
able error  can  only  be  committed  where  there  is  no  "  access 
to  the  means  of  instruction."  But  involuntary  error  may  be 
committed  even  where  instruction  sheds  the  full  blaze  of 
light.  They  fall  within  the  exception  of  unavoidable  errors 
who  have  not  access  to  the  means  of  infoi-mation.  And  they 
fall  within  the  exception  of  involuntary  error,  who,  possess- 
ing the  means  of  investigating  truth,  do  not  neglect  these 
means,  nor  wilfully  resist  the  light  of  conviction.  These  two 
excusable  kinds  of  error  will  include  all  the  sincere  inquirers 
after  truth  ;  who,  I  expressly  admit,  will  not  be  condemned 
for  rejecting  the  divinely  authorized  priesthood.  Separation 
from  this  priesthood  I  make  excusable,  whenever  "  it  pro- 
ceeds from  involuntary  and  unavoidable  ignorance  or  en-or.'^ 
Now,  sir,  what  is  the  construction  which  common  sense  and 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  101.  f  p.  94 

X  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  203. 


FOR   APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  67 

common  candour  would  put  upon  my  language  ?  Certainly 
that  in  my  judgment  they  are  excusable  for  rejecting  the 
authorized  ministry  of  the  church,  who  either  do  not  possess 
the  means  of  information,  or  are  prevented  from  availing 
themselves  of  these  means — for  their  ignorance  is  unavoidable 
and  involuntary.  That  they  are  excusable  who  remain  in 
error  on  the  subject,  through  the  imperfect  means  of  infor- 
mation in  their  power — for  their  error  is  evidently  unavoida- 
ble. That  THEY  are  excusable  who,  neither  neglecting  the 
means  of  information,  nor  wilfully  resisting  the  light  of  con- 
viction, remain  still  in  error — for  their  error  is  involuntary.,  is 
neither  negligent  nor  wilful ;  and  must  be  referred  to  that 
power  of  prejudice,  to  that  force  of  early  prepossessions,  or 
to  some  of  those  inscrutable  causes  which,  we  know,  often 
blind  the  understandings  and  pervert  the  judgments  of  the 
greatest  and  best  of  men.  You  were  bound  in  common  jus- 
tice and  candour,  as  well  as  by  the  obvious  meaning  of  terms, 
to  place  the  above  construction  on  my  language.  In  the 
very  passage  of  my  writings  which  you  have  quoted,*  I  fix 
the  imputation  of  "great  guilt"  and  "imminent  danger" 
on  those  only  "  who  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state 
of  separation  from  the  duly  authorized  ministry  of  the 
church  " — negligently .,  through  inattention  to  the  subject — 
wilfully.,  through  resistance  to  the  honest  conviction  of  their 
minds. 

Whom  then  do  I  exempt  from  what  you  are  pleased  to 
term  my  "  sweeping  sentence  of  proscription  .^"  I  exempt 
from  the  guilt  of  rejecting  the  authorized  ministry  of  the 
church,  the  thousands  who  do  not  possess  the  means  of  in- 
vestigating the  subject ;  or  are  prevented  by  their  situation 
and  peculiar  circumstances  from  pursuing  the  investigation 
— their  ignorance  is  unavoidable  and  involuntary.  I  exempt 
the  thousands  of  "  humble,  penitent,  and  obedient  "|  Chris- 
tians, who,  possessing  only  imperfect  means  of  information, 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  86  and  87. 
t  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  203. 


68  hoeart's  apology 

or  after  an  honest  and  diligent  examination,  continue  still  in  a 
state  of  "separation  from  the  authorized  ministry" — their 
error  is  not  occasioned  by  negligence — it  is  not  loilful — it  is 
involuntary  ;  and,  therefore,  in  the  eye  of  a  just  and  merciful 
Judge,  excusable.  What  chanty,  I  demand,  can  be  more  ex- 
tensive ?  To  your  ingenuity  in  distorting  my  opinions,  and 
placing  a  false  construction  on  my  language,  I  am  willing  to 
do  homage.  And  did  not  the  subject  concern  the  infinitely 
momentous  truths  of  religion,  I  might  be  disposed  to  allow 
you  the  gratification  of  displaying,  in  the  arts  of  distortion 
and  false  deduction,  talents,  which  I  confess,  in  my  opinion, 
are  unrivalled.  But  when  the  object  of  these  arts  is  to  fix 
on  me  the  execrable  and  impious  imputation  of  rendering,  in 
regard  to  non-Episcopalians,  "  repentance  towards  God,  faith 
towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  conformit}'  to  his  image,  and 
zeal  for  his  glory,  of  no  avail ;"  when  it  is  the  object  of  these 
arts  to  represent  me  as  holding  opinions  which  "  mar  the 
religion  of  non-Episcopalians,  and  render  it  stark  naught," 
and  which  make  the  "  only  alternative.  Episcopacy  or  Per- 
dition ! !  "* — when  by  these  arts  of  distortion  and  false  de- 
duction you  brand  me  with  the  odious  criminality  of  main- 
taining "  positions  of  deep-toned  horror  " — I  am  justified, 
I  am  compelled,  by  the  most  sacred  principles  of  duty,  to 
resist  and  expose  these  arts,  as  in  the  extreme  ungenerous 
and  cruel. 

In  admitting  that  involuntary  error  absolves  from  guilt,  I 
have  prepared  a  broad  shield  of  charity  which  will  cover 
all  the  sincere  inquirers  after  truth.  Involuntary  error  arises 
from  mistaken  judgment^  and  leaves  the  heart  sincerely  desi- 
rous to  embrace  the  truth.  It  is,  therefore,  compatible  with 
the  most  sincere  attachment  to  truth,  and  the  most  diligent 
investigation  of  it.  And  unless  you  will  maintain  the  per- 
fectibility of  human  reason ;  unless  you  will  disdain  the  sup- 
position that  in  any  corner  of  your  heart  lurks  some  dominant 
prejudice  or  passion  which  may  obscure  or  mislead  your  re- 

*  These  imputations  you  fix  on  me.     Christian's  Magazine,  p.  94,  95. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  59 

searches,  permit  me  to  observe,  that  distinguished  as  may  be 
your  attainments,  and  soaring  as  may  be  your  powers,  you 
too  must  take  refuge  under  that  shield  of  involuntary  error 
which  you  so  contemptuously  reject.  When  the  humiliating 
conviction  of  the  weakness  of  the  human  mind,  and  the 
power  of  prejudice,  overwhelms  me  with  doubt  and  appre- 
hension, the  firm  persuasion,  that  my  merciful  Judge  will  not 
impute  involuntary  error  to  me  as  a  crime,  is  my  hope  and 
solace.  The  contrary  supposition,  revolting  to  every  princi- 
ple of  justice,  is  instantly  repelled  by  every  view  which  rea- 
son or  scripture  affords  us  of  the  goodness,  mercy,  and  justice 
of  that  almighty  Being  who  "  knoweth  whereof  we  are 
made,  and  remembereth  that  we  are  but  dust."  "  He  is  not 
a  hard  master,  reaping  where  he  has  not  sown,  and  gathering 
where  he  has  not  strawed."  "  And  where  a  man  has  a  wil- 
ling mind,  he  is  accepted  according  to  what  he  has,  and  not 
according  to  what  he  has  not."  "  The  charity  then  of  Mr. 
H.  and  his  brethren,"  is  not  without  "warrant."  The  mercy 
which  rests  on  this  charity  is  not  "  precarious." 

You  place  a  false  construction  on  the  following  passage : 
"  But  where  the  gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the 
church  by  the  participation  of  its  ordinances  at  the  hands  of 
the  duly  authorized  priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condition 
of  salvation.''^  You  surely  are  not  ignorant  that  a  condition 
of  salvation  may  be  considered  as  indispensable,  either  with 
respect  to  God,  who  imposes  the  condition,  or  with  respect 
to  MAN,  on  whom  the  condition  is  imposed.  There  are  cer- 
tain conditions  of  salvation  which  the  Almighty  himself  will 
not  dispense  ivith.  He  will  not,  for  instance,  dispense  with 
holiness — For  "  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord." 
There  are  other  conditions  of  salvation,  in  regard  to  which, 
though  man  does  not  possess  the  right  of  dispensation,  we 
may  be  assured,  that  in  certain  cases,  a  merciful  and  sove- 
reign God  will  exercise  this  right.  Of  this  description  are 
all  the  positive  institutions  of  religion  ;  among  which  are  the 
church,  its  ministry  and  ordinances.    When,  therefore,  in  the 


60  hobart's  apology 

sentence  above  quoted,  I  rank  "  communion  with  the  church 
through  its  duly  authorized  ministry,"  as  an  "  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation,"  my  meaning  evidently  is,  that  man 
has  no  authority  to  dispense  with  this  condition,  to  fulfil  it  or 
not  as  he  pleases  ;  for,  in  the  very  next  sentence,  which  is 
in  connection  with  the  former,  I  express  the  belief,  that  God 
will^  in  certain  cases,  dispense  with  this  condition.  And  I 
applied  the  term  indispensable  to  communion  with  the  autho- 
rized ministry,  in  order  to  oppose  the  opinion  too  commonly 
entertained,  that  the  ministry  of  the  church  may  be  dispensed 
with,  or  altered,  as  man  may  please  ;  and  that,  of  course,  com- 
munion with  the  ministry  originally  constituted  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  is  a  matter  of  no  moment.  Nor  was  the  term 
improperly  applied  in  this  sense.  Suppose  an  unbeliever 
should  solemnly  profess  to  you  his  penitence  and  faith.  You 
become  satisfied  of  his  sincerity.  But  he  denies  the  necessity 
of  communion  with  the  visible  church  the  "  nursery  of  the 
church  in  heaven,"*  and  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper. 
Would  you  not  be  justified  in  the  following  address  to  him  .'' 
"  Sir,  it  is  your  indispensable  duty  to  commune  with  the  visible 
church  by  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  The  standards  of 
faith  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  maintain,  on  the  authority 
of  scripture,  that  '  out  of  the  church  there  is  ordinarily  no 
possibility  of  salvation. 'f  Into  this  church  baptism  is  the 
mode  of  admission.^  By  this  sacrament  and  by  the  Lord's 
supper,  which  are  '  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace, '§ 
your  *  ingrafting  into  Christ,'  and  all  the  '•  benefits  of  Christ's 
death,'  are  sealed  to  you  as  a  true  believer.  ||  With  the 
necessity  of  communion  with  the  visible  church,  and  with 
these  sacraments,  man  has  no  right  to  dispense.  Though  in 
the  cases  of  penitent  and  true  believers,  who  do  not  negligent- 
ly or  mlfully  contemn  these  institutions,  a  merciful  God  will 

*  So  styled  by  you.     Christian's  Magazine,  introduction,  p.  9. 
t  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches,  chap.  xxv.  sec.  2. 
j  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches,  chap,  xxviii.  1. 
§  Chap.xxvii.  1.  11  Chap.  xxix.  1. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  61 

dispense  with  them ;  yet  as  far  as  respects  my  authority,  and 
your  duty,  they  are  indispensable  conditions  of  salvation."  I 
see  not  where  would  be  the  inaccuracy  of  such  language. 
You  justify  it  in  your  "  Letters  on  Frequent  Communion." 
It  is  one  principal  object  of  these  letters  (p.  6,  &c.)  to  prove 
your  position,  that  "  frequent  communion  is  an  indispensable 
duty."  Were  I  to  deal  with  this  assertion  in  the  same 
uncandid  manner  by  which  you  attempt  to  fix  "  crime  or 
contradiction"  upon  me,  you  would  be  placed  in  a  very 
awkward  predicament.  I  might  argue  thus — If  the  duty  be 
indispensable,  no  possible  excuses  can  justify  the  neglect  of 
it.  And  if  they  who  neglect  it  are  justifiable  in  this  neglect, 
it  is  not  indispensable :  otherwise,  the  definition  might  run 
thus — an  indispensable  duty  is  that  lohich  may  be  dispensed 
with.  The  only  alternative  then  is  frequent  communion,  or 
crime  in  violating  an  indispensable  duty.  How  then  will 
you  answer  for  your  conduct,  in  refusing  the  communion  to 
a  person  confined  for  months,  and  perhaps  years,  to  a  sick 
room,  and  thus  involving  him  in  the  awful  guilt  of  violating 
the  indispensable  duty  of  frequent  communion  !  No,  sir,  I 
presume  your  acceptation  of  the  word  indispensable  is  the 
same  in  this  case  as  when  I  apply  it  to  communion  with  the 
authorized  priesthood.  There  are  certain  cases  in  which 
you  will  acknowledge  that  Christians  are  absolved  from  the 
duty  of  frequent  communion.  And  there  are  also  cases  in 
which  I  maintain  that  they  are  absolved,  in  the  sight  of  God, 
from  the  guilt  of  rejecting  the  authorized  ministry.  It  would 
indeed  be  absurd  to  say,  that  "  an  indispensable  condition  may 
be  dispensed  with  " — if  the  terms  be  applied  in  one  and  the 
same  sense.  But  surely  "a  condition  indispensable,^^  as  it 
respects  man^s  authority  or  right,  may  yet  be  ^'  dispensed 
with''''  by  that  God  who  is  supreme  in  authority  and  power. 
What  now,  sir,  becomes  of  your  attempt  to  make  mj^  only 
alternative  "  contradiction  or  crime  .^"  What  becomes  of 
your  attempt,  by  perverting  my  language  to  a  meaning  differ- 
ent from  that  in  which  my  explicit  declarations  should  have 

6 


62  hobart's  apology 

led  you  to  understand  it,  to  fix  on  me  the  odious  and  impious 
imputation  of  ^'  making  the  only  alternative,  Episcopacy  or 
Perdition  tr* 

You  charge  me  with  "  placing  the  external  order  of  the 
church  upon  a  level  with  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus  in  the 
article  of  acceptance  with  God."  It  is  the  least  of  the  crimi- 
nality of  such  a  tenet,  that  it  "  wounds  the  bosom  of  tender 
piety,"  In  imputing  it  to  me,  you  overwhelm  me  with  the 
awful  guilt  of  derogating  from  the  supreme  efficacy  of  that 
precious  blood  which  alone  shields  the  sinner  from  the 
wrath  of  an  offended  God.  In  the  sense  in  which  yow  under- 
stand the  term  '•'■  indispensable^''''  I  would  not  apply  it  to 
either /ai/A  or  external  order.  Where  the  gospel  is  proclaim- 
ed, faith  in  Christ,  and  communion  with  that  visible  body  of 
which  he  is  the  head,  and  which  he  redeems  and  sanctifies, 
are  conditions  with  which  man  has  no  authority  to  dispense. 
As,  however,  I  have  tepeatedl}"  expressed  the  belief  that 
God  will  dispense^  in  cases  of  involuntary  error,  with  what 
I  consider  regular  and  valid  communion  with  the  church,  it 
is  evident  that  I  do  not  place  "  external  order  and  faith  in 
Christ"  upon  a  level.  But  grant  that  I  make  them  in  the 
same  sense  indispensable  :  does  it  follow  that  I  "  place  exter- 
nal order  on  a  level  with  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus .?" 
May  I  not  consistently  maintain  that  these  all-sufficient  merits 
are  the  only  grounds  of  the  acceptance  of  our  faith,  and  also 
of  our  obedience  to  that  external  order  which  God  has  pre- 
scribed ?  In  your  zeal  to  fix  on  me  the  blasphemous  doc- 
trine, that  obedience  to  external  order  is  of  as  much  avail  to 
salvation,  as  "  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus,"  you  evidently 
place  "/az7A"  on  a  level  with  these  merits.  On  the  suppo- 
sition that  I  make  "  soundness  in  external  order "  an  indis- 

*  By  the  same  disingenuous  statement  of  the  sense  in  which  I  apply 
the  term  "  indispensable,"  your  friend  and  co-adjutor,  Mr.  M'Leod,  re- 
presents me  in  his  ecclesiastical  catechism  (p.  113,)  as  "excluding  from 
the  hopes  of  happiness  hereafter  all  who  are  not  EpiscopSdians^  and  even 
all  Episcopalians  who  do  not  receive  the  Lord's  supper." 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  63 

pensable  condition  of  salvation,  I  am  guilty,  according  to 
you,  of  placing  external  order  on  a  level  with  the  merits  of 
Christ.  Therefore,  as  you  make  faith  an  indispensable  con- 
dition, na}^  "the  hinging  point  of  salvation,"*  by  your  own 
reasoning  it  follows,  that  you  place  faith  "  on  a  level  with 
the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus  in  the  article  of  acceptance  with 
God" — that  is,  faith.,  which  (though  it  be  formed  in  the 
soul  by  divine  grace)  is  an  act  of  the  understanding  and  the 
will,  and  therefore  a  human  performance ^  as  much  so  as 
"  soundness  in  external  order,''''  has  as  great  influence  towards 
our  salvation  as  "the  merits  of  the  Lord  Jesus!  P^'f  I  mean 
not,  however,  to  impute  this  position  to  you.  But  you  must 
take  your  choice — either  acknowledge  that  your  reasoning 
against  me  is  fallacious,  or  incur  the  censure  of  placing 
human  performances  on  a  level  with  the  merits  of  Christ. 
Whether  these  performances  be  faith,  or  soundness  in  exter- 
nal order,  is  of  no  consequence.  God  forbid  that  I  should 
depreciate  faith  as  a  Christian  grace,  or  attempt  to  lower  its 
rank  among  the  conditions  of  salvation.  But  it  is  surely 
impious  to  place  any  qualifications  in  the  creature,  even 
though  they  may  be  wrought  in  him  (as  faith  certainly  is) 
through  the   agency  of  the    Holy  Spirit,   upon   a    "  level 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  98. 

t  It  really  appears  to  me,  that  in  what  you  say  of  faith,  you  are  in 
danger  of  running  from  the  popish  absurdity  of  the  77ierit  of  works  into 
the  equally  great  absurdity  of  the  77i€rit  of  faith.  In  fact,  I  think,  this 
•is  an  error  to  which  Calvinistic  writers  in  general  expose  themselves. 
The  instrumentality  of  faith  in  our  justification  is  concisely  and  clearly 
stated  by  Bishop  Horsely,  whom  I  quote  with  the  more  pleasure,  be- 
cause he  has  been  supposed  by  some  (in  my  judgment  unjustly)  to  be 
favourable  to  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism.  "  It  is  not  by  the  merit  of 
our  faith  more  than  by  the  merit  of  our  works  that  we  are  justified : 
there  is  indeed  no  hope  for  any  merit  of  our  own,  but  through  the  efficacy 
of  our  Lord's  atonement.  For  that  we  '  are  justified  by  faith'  is  not 
on  account  of  any  merit  in  our  faith ;  but  because  faith  is  the  first  princi- 
ple of  that  communion  between  the  believer's  soul  and  the  divine  Spirit, 
on  which  the  whole  of  our  spiritual  life  depends."  Bishop  Horsely's 
Charge  to  his  Clergy,  1790. 


64  hobart's  apology 

with  the  merits  of  Christ  in  the  article  of  acceptance  with 
God." 

I  complain,  that  in  your  attempt  to  fix  on  me  the  imputa- 
tion of  making  "  Episcopacy  of  primary,  and  faith  of  second- 
ary importance,"  *  you  haA^e  materially  misstated  a  passage  in 
my  writings.     This  passage  you  thus  introduce  :   '^  We  are 
told  again,  that  *  whoever  is  in  communion  with  the  bishop, 
the  supreme  governor  of  the  church  upon  earth,  is  in  com- 
munion with  Christ  the  head  of  it ;  and  whoever  is  not  in 
communion  with  the  bishop,  is  thereby  cut  off  from  commu- 
nion with  Christ,'  and  this  is  said  to  be  a  ^general  conclu- 
sion'   *  established '  by  Hhe  uniform  testimony  of  all  the 
apostolic  and  primitive  writers."     Now,  the  passage  which 
you  dissever  and  alter ^  and  the  parts  of  which  you  arrange  to 
suit  your  own  purposes,  is  as  follows :  "  The  uniform  testi- 
mony of  all  the  apostolic  and  primitive  writers  establishes  the 
general  conclusion,  that  whoever  was  in   communion  with 
the  bishop,  the  supreme  governor  of  the  church  upon  earth, 
WAS  in  communion  with  Christ  the  head  of  it ;  and  whoever 
WAS  not  in  communion  with  the  bishop,  was  thereby  cut  off 
from  communion  with  Christ." "f      The  difference  is  striking 
and  material.     According  to  your  quotation  of  this  passage, 
3"ou  make  me  state  a  doctrine  of  my  own,  in  terms  of  my  own 
choice.     Whereas,  the  passage  as  it  stands  in  the  Festivals 
and  Fasts,  and  in  Daubeny,  from  which  it  is  taken,  states  an 
historical  fact  ^  that  such  was  the  opinion  of  the  Apostolic 
and  PRIMITIVE  WRITERS.      The    difference,   I  say,  is  strik- 
ing and    material.     For  in  the  passage    as  yo\i  state  it,   I 
am   answerable   not  merely  for  the  doctrine  intended  to  be 
convej^ed,  but  for  the  language  also ;  which,  in  such  ingeni- 
ous hands  as  yours,  may  be  twisted  and  perverted  to  a  dan- 
gerous and  erroneous  construction.     But  in  the  passage,  as  it 
appears  in  Daubeny,  and  in  the   Festivals  and  Fasts,  the 
Apostolic  and  primitive  writers  alone  are  answerable  for  the 
*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  99,  100. 
t  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  59. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  65 

terms  in  which  they  convey  their  doctrine.  And  as  it  was 
your  object,  from  this  passage,  to  raise  in  your  readers  that 
"  gaze  of  astonishment  or  swell  of  indignation  "  which  held 
you  "in  suspense,"  "  after  perusing  it " — it  was  unwarrant- 
able in  you  to  distort  and  alter  the  passage,  and  change  the 
arrangement  of  the  parts. 

The  primitive  fathers  believed  what  the  Presbyterian  con- 
fessions of  faith  assert,  that  "  out  of  the  visible  church  there 
is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation."*  And  as  thej^  knew 
no  church  without  a  bishop  at  the  head  of  it,!  of  course  they 
were  compelled  to  conclude,  that  there  was  no  "  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation"  but  through  the  bishop.  The  only 
difference  between  you  and  them  is,  that  they  believed  there 
could  be  no  visible  church  but  where  there  was  a  bishop ; 
and  you  believe  a  "  perfect  equality  in  the  ministry  "to  be 
the  principle  of  church  unity. J  You  both  agree  that  visible 
communion  with  Christ  is  maintained  by  communion  with  the 
churchy  through  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  For,  ac- 
cording to  the  Presbyterian  confessions  of  faith,  these  ordi- 
nances were  instituted  "to  put  a  visible  difference  between 
those  who  belong  unto  the  church  and  the  rest  of  the  wmldy^ 
Your  confounding  this  visible  communion  with  Christ 
through  his  church,  with  that  spintaal  communion  which 
commences  in  true  faith,  but  which  must  be  "  sealed  "  and 
'*  nourished  "  by  the  ordinances  of  the  Church,  has  led  you 
to  represent  me  as  maintaming  that  "  there  is  no  access  to 
communion  with  Christ  but  through  the  bishop ;"  and  that 
"  faith  in  Christ  is  impossible  where  there  is  no  communion 
with  the  bishop. "II    That  there  can  be  no  visible  communion 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv. 

t  "  It  was  the  general  received  opinion  of  the  ancient  Christian 
world,  that  Ecclesia  est  in  Episcopo,  the  outward  being  of  a  church, 
consisted  in  the  having  of  a  bishop."    Hooker,  book  vii.  sec.  5. 

X  Christian's  Magazine,  introduction,  p.  12,  13. 

§  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii. 

II  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  99. 

6* 


66  hobart's  apology 

with  Christ  but  through  the  bishop,  I  undoubtedly  maintain. 
For,  on  Episcopal  principles,  none  but  a  bishop  can  give  a 
valid  commission  to  administer  those  ordinances  on  which 
this  visible  communion  depends.  But  spiritual  communion 
with  Christ,  that  communion  whereby  we  spiritually  discern 
his  gracious  offices,  and  apply  them  to  our  souls,  depends 
upon  the  exercise  of  genuine  faith.  While,  therefore,  I 
maintain  that  "  true  faith  vitallj^  unites  its  possessor  to 
Christ,"  I  can  consistently  maintain,  that  this  communion 
must  be  "  sealed,"  must  be  "  confirmed,"  by  communion 
with  the  church  through  its  duly  authorized  ministers  ;  and 
that  he  who  ivilfully  rejects  this  communion  with  the  visible 
church,  "  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation,"  will  forfeit  those  blessings  to  which  his  commu- 
nion with  Christ  by  faith  would  otherwise  entitle  him.  What 
God  hath  joined  together  let  not  man  put  asunder.  Baptism, 
and  the  Lordh  supper  are,  on  Presbyterian  principles,  tike 
"  seals  of  the  covenant."*  And  can  he  lay  any  claim  to  the 
blessings  of  this  covenant  who  wilfully  rejects  its  "  holy 
seals  .^"  If  he  can,  to  what  purpose  serve  these  seals  }  And 
if  he  cannot,  as  these  "  seals"  are,  on  Presbyterian  princi- 
ples, "  not  to  be  dispensed  by  any  but  a  minister  of  the  word, 
lawfully  ordainedj^^'\  does  not  communion  with  Christy  through 
the  "seals"  of  the  covenant,  depend,  yourself  being  judge, 
on  communion  with  lawful  ministers?  The  only  difference 
between  us  then  is  on  the  question.  Who  are  lawful  ministers  ? 
We  both  agree  that  by  true  faith  the  believer  becomes  inte- 
rested in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant ;  but  that  to  these 
blessings  (cases  of  unavoidable  ignorance  and  involuntary 
error  excepted)  he  can  have  no  regular  title  before  they  are 
sealed  and  confirmed  to  him  in  those  divine  ordinances  which 
Christ  instituted  to  be  the  "  means  whereby  we  receive " 
these  blessings,  "  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof. "J 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  xxviii.  xxix. 
t  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  4. 
X  Church  Catechism. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  67 

Nor  is  your  charge  just,  that  I  lessen  the  importance  of 
faith.  On  my  principles,  without  true  faith  all  external 
communion  with  Christ  through  his  church  can  be  of  no 
avail,  and  will  only  tend  to  our  greater  condemnation.  I 
assert,  that  to  the  "believer"  only  are  "the  merits  and 
grace  of  the  Redeemer  applied,  in  the  devout  and  humble 
participation  of  the  ordinances  of  the  church,  administered 
by  a  priesthood,  who  derive  their  authority,  bj"  regular  trans- 
mission, from  Christ."*  "  Pardon,  salvation,  and  grace, 
the  inestimable  blessings  of  this  sacred  ordinance  (the  Lord's 
supper)  are  conveyed  only  to  the  true  believer.  "|  "  Com- 
munion with  the  church  is  the  appointed  mode  by  which  the 
faith  and  obedience  of  Christians  is  to  be  quickened  and  pre- 
served, and  made  acceptable  unto  God.  But  unless  their 
communion  with  the  church  conduces  to  this  end,  and  ad- 
vances them  into  a  conformity  to  Christ  their  holy  and  divine 
head,  it  is  not  sincere,  and  will  not  be  effectual  to  their  sal- 
vation. Those  who,  admitted  into  the  church,  live  in  a 
course  of  sin  and  disobedience,  will  incur  the  heavy  con- 
demnation of  having  resisted  God^s  grace,  of  having  done 
despite  unto  his  spirit,  of  having  contemned  the  offers  of  di- 
vine mercy,  and  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant  an  unholy 
thing. ^^"j^.  So  far  then  from  your  accusation  being  just,  that 
I  "  hold  up  Episcopacy  as  of  primary,  and  faith  in  Christ 
as  of  secondary  importance  ;"§  on  the  contrary",  I  make  all 
effectual  or  beneficial  communion  with  the  bishop  to  depend 
on  faith  ;  and,  agreeably  to  your  own  conclusion,  "  that  the 
one  upon  which  the  existence  of  the  other  depends  must  be 
the  more  important  of  the  two,"||  I  make,  of  course,  faith  in 
Christ  of  more  importance  than  communion  with  the  bishop. 
This  communion  with  the  bishop  can  take  placQ^only  through 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  dispensed  by  ministers  Epis- 

*  Preface  to  the  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  5. 

t  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  HI. 

X  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  203. 

§  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  100.  ||  p.  100. 


copally  ordained.  And  for  baptism  in  the  case  of  adults,  and 
for  the  Lord's  supper,  faith  is  a  preparatory,  an  essential 
qualification.  As,  therefore,  on  my  principles,  faith  precedes 
communion  Avith  the  bishop,  it  is  distinct  from  this  commu- 
nion, and  independent  of  it.*  How  then  can  I  be  accused  of 
making  "  faith  impossible  where  there  is  no  communion  with 
the  bishop,"  and  of  holding  principles  which  make  "  all  non- 
Episcopalians,  of  necessity,  infidels  ?"|  All  3'our  ingenious 
reasoning,  which  appears  to  have  cost  you  so  much  labour, 
and  by  which  you  attempt  to  justify  your  odious  charges 
against  me,  is  founded  on  an  unpandid  construction  of  my 
language,  on  consequences  unfairly  deduced  from  my  prin- 
ciples. 

Really,  sir,  it  pains  me  to  be  compelled  to  charge  you 
with  having,  in  my  judgment,  wielded  the  pen  of  contro- 
versy with  so  little  candour  and  moderation.  It  is  impos- 
sible for  any  person  to  write  in  such  a  manner  as  to  prevent 
insulated  passages  and  expressions  from  being  tortured  into 
a  meaning  utterly  foreign  to  his  sentiments  and  intentions, 
and  to  the  general  strain  of  his  reasoning.  Hence  no  rule 
is  more  universally  acknowledged ;  no  rule  more  sacredly 
regarded  by  all  candid  critics,  than  that  which  determines 
the  sentiments  of  a  writer  from  the  general  tenor  of  his  re- 
marks, and  pennits  the  various  parts  of  his  writings  mutually 
to  explain  and  qualify  each  other.  Did  I  possess  your  inge- 
nuity and  vigour  of  remark,  and  were  disposed  to  violate 
this  rule  of  candid  criticism,  I  could  deduce  from  detached 
parts  of  the  sacred  oracles  themselves,  the  most  contradic- 
tory and  even  blasphemous  opinions.     This  obvious  and  ne- 

*  This  is  doubtless  in  a  certain  sense  true.  But  if,  through  "  commu- 
nion with  the  bishop,"  we  enjoy  the  highest  feUowfihip  with  Christ ; 
and  if  this  fellowship  be  designed  to  exalt  and  perfect  within  us  the 
essential  graces  of  the  Christian  character,  may  it  not  be  questionable 
how  far  or  how  lon^  we  can  haye  gospel  faith  without  "  communion 
with  the  bishop,"  or  through  him'**^with  Christ  the  divine  head  of  the 
Church,  which  the  gospel  enjoins  as  so  important  a  means  of  grace  ? — Ed. 

t  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  99. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  69 

cessary  rule,  which  should  be  sacred  with  every  just  reasoner, 
is,  in  your  hands,  no  more  than  a  straw  in  the  hands  of  a 
giant.  Rarely,  rarely  indeed,  have  you  the  candour  and 
justice  to  extend  it  to  my  writings.  It  is  your  invariable 
practice  to  take  particular  expressions,  and  without  consider- 
ing their  connection  with  other  passages  which  qualify  their 
application,  and  determine  the  meaning  in  which  I  use  them, 
to  force  them  into  whatever  sense  it  may  suit  your  purpose. 
And  you  act  thus  unfairly,  not  to  convict  me  of  venial  errors, 
but  to  fix  on  me  ^'  positions  of  deep-toned  horror  !"  Is  this 
to  "  do  to  others  as  you  would  that  they  should  do  to  j^ou  .^" 
Honestly  ask  your  own  heart.  Appeal  to  your  own  conscience. 


LETTER   VII. 


Sir, 


I  AM  justified,  therefore,  in  disclaiming  as  uncandid 
and  illegitimate  the  consequences  which  you  deduce  from  my 
opinions.  I  expressly  guarded  against  these  consequences. 
Without  involving  myself  in  any  contradictions,  I  can  dis- 
claim them.  I  shall  now  prove  that  the  same  uncandid  and 
unfair  arts  would  involve  many  of  your  principles  in  odium, 
and  fix  on  you  consequences  of  your  opinions  which  you 
will  doubtless  abhor  and  disclaim. 

You  take  insulated  sentences  from  my  books  ;  and  without 
permitting  other  passages  to  explain  or  modify  them,  deduce 
obnoxious  consequences  from  them. 

Let  this  method  be  applied  to  many  of  your  own  prmci- 
ples  and  assertions.  Let  us  suppose  some  ingenious  sophist 
resolves  to  dispute  Dr.  Mason's  pretensions  to  superiority  in 
the  arts  of  plausible  but  false  deduction,  of  blackening  opin- 
ions that  they  may  be  "urged  over  the  precipice."  He 
opens  the  Christian's  Magazine,  and  thus  breaks  a  lance 
with  its  giant  editor. 

According  to  Dr.  M.  the  visible  church  on  earth  is  the 


70  hobart's  apology 

"nursery  of  the  church  in  heaven."*  Now,  the  ministry 
and  wdinances  are  the  only  external  means  by  which  the 
visible  church  "  nurses"  men  for  heaven.  Therefore  the 
ministry  and  ordinances  of  the  visible  church  "  nurse"  men 
for  heaven.  And  as  divine  grace  "  can  do  no  more,"  it  fol- 
lows, that  Dr.  M.  places  the  ministry  and  ordinances  on  a 
level  with  divine  grace  in  the  "  article  "  of  "  nursing  "  men 
for  heaven. 

Again.  Dr.  M.  being  judge,  "habitual  disobedience  to 
any  of  the  known  commands  of  Christ,"  to  any  law  of 
God,  to  any  thing  which  he  hath  prescribed,  "  excludes 
from  the  kingdom  of  heaven." "f"  But  according  to  Dr.  M. 
"  Presbyterial  government,"  in  which  there  is  "  perfect 
equality  of  rank  among  ministers,"  is  the  "law  of  God's 
house;" J  it  is  the  "^rwe  and  only  government  which  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  prescribed  in  his  word."§  There- 
fore habitual  disobedience  to  Presbyteiian  government  excludes 
from  the  kingdom  of  heaven ! !  And,  of  course.  Dr.  M.  makes 
obedience  to  Presbyterian^  government  "  the  hinging  point  of 
salvation."  He  rushes,  with  his  eyes  open,  into  the  very 
crime  for  which  he  denounces  "  Mr.  H.  and  his  compeers." 
Unless  he  "  flinch  from  the  consequences  of  his  own  doc- 
trine," he  cannot  even  take  his  choice  between  "  contradic- 
tion and  crime.''''  For,  if  habitual  disobedience  to  Presbyte- 
rian government  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  obe- 
dience to  this  government  is  made  by  Dr.  M.  "  the  hinging 
point  of  salvation ;"  and  thus  he  contradicts  his  own  declara- 
tion, that  this  point  is  "  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus."  ||  And  as 
Dr.  M.  maintains  that  habitual  disobedience  to  Presbyterian 
government  (which,  according  to  him,  is  a  "  known  com- 
mand" of  Christ)   "  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;" 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  introduction,  p.  9. 
t  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  100. 
X  Christian's  Magazine,  introduction,  p.  12,  13. 

§  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  Associate-Reformed  Church,  p. 
475. 

II  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  9S. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  71 

and  as  rejection  of  Christ  can  do  more,  therefore  Dr.  M. 
makes  disobedience  to  Presbyterian  government  equally  criminal 
with  rejection  of  the  Lord  Jesus ! !  He  is  guilty  of  the  crime 
of  degrading  the  merits  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  a  level  with  a 
point  of  external  order,  obedience  to  Presbyterian  government ; 
for  he  annexes  the  same  penalty  to  the  rejection  of  both — 
exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

And,  further,  as  according  to  Dr.  M.  "  habitual  disobedi- 
ence "  to  Presbyterial  government — which  he  maintains  is  a 
"  known  command  of  Christ " — "  excludes  from  the  kingdom 
of  heaven;"  therefore  he  excludes  from  heaven  Episcopa- 
lians, Congregationalists,  Independents,  Methodists,  Baptists, 
Quakers,  all  of  whom  habitually  disobey  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment!! "  The  alternative,  then,  is  "  Presbyterianism  "or 
Perdition  ! !"  No,  no,  Dr.  M  will  indignantly  exclaim,  I 
allow  that  "  there  are  sins  both  of  ignorance  and  infirmity, 
which  consist  with  a  gracious  state."  And  pray,  did  not 
Mr.  H.  make  the  same  concession  when  he  declared  that 
sins  of"  unavoidable  ignorance  and  involuntary  error  ^^  would 
not  be  punished,  and,  of  course,  consist  with  a  gracious  state  ? 
What  is  involuntary  error  but  a  sin  of  infirmity  ?  "  Mea- 
suring," therefore,  to  Dr.  M.'s  assertions  the  same  measure 
which  he  meted  to  the  assertions  of  Mr.  H.  and  his  "  fel- 
lows ;"  it  results  that  Episcopalians  and  others  who  renounce 
the  divine  institution  of  Presbyterian  government,  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Dr.  M.  indeed,  "  soft- 
ens this  sweeping  sentence  of  proscription,  by  representing  it 
as  not  inconsistent  with  that  charity  which  extends  mercy  to 
all "  who  sin  through  ignorance  or  infirmity.  But  "  as  there 
are  few  districts  where  this  question  can  be  agitated  "  with- 
out Presbyterians,  or  their  ministers,  or  their  writings,  "the 
error"  in  rejecting  Presbyterian  government  "  must  almost 
always  be  wilful.''''  And,  besides.  Episcopalians  and  others 
"  have  no  ground  for  this  very  precarious  mercy  but  the 
charity"  of  Dr.  M.  "  and  his  brethren."  And  surely  "  he 
is  a  fool  "  who  would  run  the  risk  of  being  excluded  from 


72  hoeart's  apology 

the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  rejecting  Presbyterian  government 
"  on  the  credit  of  the  charity"  of  Dr.  M.  and  the  Christian's 
Magazine.  The  very  reasoning,  the  very  language  by 
which  Dr.  M.  endeavours*  to  render  odious  Mr.  H.'s  princi- 
ples, blackens  his  own. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  impute  to  j^ou  the  conclusions  to 
which  your  able  competitor  in  the  arts  of  sophistical  reason- 
ing would  drag  you.  But  I  must  declare,  that  the  above 
obnoxious  consequences  are  deduced  from  insulated  expres- 
sions and  sentences  of  your  writings,  by  reasoning  equally 
fair  and  legitimate  with  that  by  which  you  deduce,  from 
insulated  expressions  and  sentences  of  my  books,  the  obnox- 
ious opinions  which  you  impute  to  me.  The  weapons  which 
you  have  aimed  against  me  recoil  upon  yourself. 

It  will  require  the  exercise  of  much  more  moderation  and 
candour  than  you  have  displayed,  to  reduce  your  principles 
and  reasonings  into  an  harmonious  system.  The  object  of 
the  essay  on  "the  visible  church,"  is  to  impress  on  Chris- 
tians the  important  doctrines — that  there  is  an  "external 
visible  church ;"  that  this  church  is  "  the  house  of  the 
Lord;"!  that  this  church  has  a  ^^  visible  ministry,  visible 
worship,  visible  sacraments  ;''''X  that  to  this  visible  church 
(and  of  course  through  its  visible  ministry  and  sacraments) 
"  the  Lord  added  such  as  are  saved  ;"§  for  in  this  "  public 
visible  society  which  God  has  appropriated  to  himself — his 
name  is  known,  and  his  mercies  vouchsafed :"  ||  in  the  words 
of  the  Presbyterian  confession  of  faith,  there  is  "ordinarily 
out  of  this  church  no  possibility  of  salvation."  Now,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  prove  that  I  have  laid  greater  stress  on 
external  order  than  the  foregoing  language  will  warrant.  Yet, 
when  I  turn  to  your  "  review  of  the  Essays  on  Episcopacy," 
I  find  that  I  am  condemned  for  laying  greater  stress  upon 
external  order  than  is  laid  upon  it  in  the  word  of  God.  And 
all  the  divine  institutions  you  involve  in  one  single  principle, 
faith. 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  94,  95.     f  p.  54.     t  P-  71.     §  p.  62.     ||  p.  72. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  73 

Again.  In  the  essay  on  the  visible  church  we  are  repeat- 
edly told  that  this  church  is  but  one.*  Its  visible  unity  is 
particularly  insisted  on.  It  is  spoken  of  in  the  language  of 
scripture  as  the  "  body  of  Christ ;"  to  which,  of  course,  we 
must  conclude,  that,  "  ordinarily^''''  all  must  be  united,  who 
would  partake  of  the  saving  influence  of  its  divine  head. 
Nay,  we  are  told  that  to  the  church  "  God  hath  given  his 
ordinances" — ^' the  means  of  salvation."!  And,  conse- 
quently, there  is  indeed  very  good  cause  why  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  should  "argue  against  schism.''^ "I 
Whereas,  on  the  principles  advanced  in  the  "review  of  the 
Essays  on  Episcopacy,"  schism  is  only  a  name,  "  vox  et  pre- 
terea  nihil,  mere  noise,"  a  scare-crow  to  "  disquiet  timid 
consciences."  On  your  principles  the  single  act  of  faith 
unites  the  Christian  so  effectually  to  Christ,  that  he  can  never 
finally  fall  away.  Of  what  consequence  then  is  "  the  visible 
church,"  its  "external  ordinances,"  its  "means  of  salva- 
tion .''"  For  Dr.  M.  being  judge,  faith  in  the  testimony  of 
God  does  not  depend  on  "  going  through  the  gate  of  Episco- 
pacy," nor,  for  the  same  reason,  through  any  other  gate  of 
external  order ;  and  faith  alone  infallibly  saves  us.  Where 
then  is  the  guilt  or  danger  of  schism,  of  separation  from  the 
"  external  ordinances  "  and  the  "  visible  ministry "  of  the 
church  ?  While  true  believers  have  faith,  they  are  united  to 
Christ.  And  they  may,  therefore,  divide  and  divide  the 
"  body  of  Christ "  without  end;  may  split  into  innumerable 
sects  and  parties  ;  may,  in  fact,  lay  aside  the  "  ministry  and 
ordinances  "  appointed  and  commanded  by  Christ  himself  as 
"  means  of  salvation  ;"  and  yet,  if  they  only  have  faith — all 
is  well — ^for  faith  is  "  the  hinging  point  of  salvation  :"  the 
inquiry,  "  whether  a  man  shall  go  to  heaven  or  to  hell,"  is 
"fixed  to  this  point"  only,  "  whether  he  was  a  believer  in 
the  Lord  Jesus !"  On  your  principles  faith  is  entirely 
unconnected  with  "  external  order,"  and  faith  alone  is  essen- 
tial to  salvation.     You  argue  indeed  precisely  as  one  who 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  G3,  70.  f  p.  71.  :f  p.  61. 

7 


74  hobart's  apology 

insists  that  there  is  no  visible  church  would  wish  you  to 
argue.  For  if  a  correct  definition  of  the  church  be,  that  it 
is  "  the  whole  body  of  believers  ;"  and  if,  in  order  to  become 
a  believer,  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  through  any  gate  of 
external  order ;  if,  of  course,  faith  simply  and  alone  admits 
into  the  church,  a  visible  ministry  and  sacraments  are  not 
necessarily  connected  with  the  church.  It  follows,  there  is 
no  visible  church.  A  single  "  dash  of  your  pen"  has  thus 
demolished  the  visible  churchy  consigned  to  contempt  its.  min- 
istry, its  ordinances,  its  visible  unity,  and  made  that  heinous 
crime  schismhut  an  "  empty  name." 

The  reasoning  in  the  "  essay  on  the  visible  church,"  is 
founded  on  the  principle,  that  the  ''  visible  church  is  in  sub- 
stance the  same  under  both  Testaments.  The  New  Testa- 
ment Church  is  the  very  same  great  society  which  God  for- 
merly erected  for  the  praise  of  his  glory,  and  has  caused  to 
pass  under  a  new  form  of  dispensation."*  Of  course,  we 
may  conclude  that  the  "  visible  ministry "  and  "  visible 
sacraments  "I  of  this  weiyand  more  perfect  dispensation,  are 
not  less  glorious,  nor  less  important,  nor  less  obligatory  than 
those  of  the  old  dispensation.  Under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation  they  "  perished,"  who,  like  "  Korah,"  "  gain- 
sayed,"  rebelled  against  the  Jewish  priesthood.  But  under 
the  new  dispensation,  though  the  Apostle  still  speaks  of  those 
who  perish  "  in  the  gainsaying  of  Korah, "J  your  reasoning 
will  sanction  the  conclusion,  that  "  rejection  of  the  ministry  " 
does  not  affect  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  offender — for  ^^  faith 
alone  is  the  hinging  point  of  salvation."  Communion  with 
the  church  under  the  Old  Testament  was  the  inean  and  pledge 
to  the  believing  Jews  of  their  being  in  a  covenant  state  ;  and 
this  communion  was  maintained  by  communion  with  the 
priesthood.  And  yet  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation 
it  would  appear,  according  to  your  principles,  that  faith  alone, 
effectually,  and  finally,  and  unchangeably,  and  independently 
of  all  external  order,  brings  men  into  covenant  with  God.    For 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  72.  f  p.  71.  J  Jude. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  75 

faith  alone,  as  opposed  to  external  order,  you  declare,  is 
"  the  hinging  point  of  salvation."  Of  course,  if  a  man  be 
united  to  Christ  by  faith,  it  does  not  affect  his  salvation 
whether  he  be  in  the  church  or  out  of  it ;  whether  he  sub- 
mit to  a  ministry  of  divine  appointment,  or  one  only  of 
human  invention ;  or  whether  in  fact  he  submit  to  "  the 
visible  ministry  and  ordinances  of  Christ,"  or  reject  them  all 
as  mere  "  beggarly  elements,"  unnecessary  to  genuine  faith, 
or  the  saving  operations  of  the  spirit.  Your  principle  is 
indeed  that  corner-stone  of  Calvinism,  that  the  salvation  of 
believers  depends  solely  on  the  unconditional  decree  of  God; 
of  an  interest  in  which  decree,  faith  is  the  sole  and  unfailing 
assurance.  And  this  principle,  I  am  bold  to  say,  will  drive 
its  defenders,  "  if  closely  followed  up,"  through  the  Fanati- 
cal and  Antinomian  "camps,"  into  fatalism  itself;  into 
making  God  the  author  of  sin,  and  seating  a  blind  and  cruel 
destiny  on  that  throne  which  now  beams  forth  unutterable 
holiness  and  mercy.* 

I  am  aware  that  you  qualify  your  position,  that  faith  alone 
is  essential  to  salvation,  by  the  assertion,  that  "  habitual 
disobedience  to  any  of  the  divine  commands  excludes  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But  how  is  this  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  doctrine  that  "  faith  is  the  hinging  point  of  salva- 
tion ?"  For  surely  whatever  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  is  the  hinging  point  of  salvation.  And  whatever 
falls  under  the  denomination  of  "  habitual  disobedience  to  a 
divine  command,"  let  that  command  respect  external  order, 
or  matters  of  doctrine,  becomes  then  as  much  the  hinging 
point  of  salvation  as  faith  is.  I  shrewdly  suspect,  sir,  that 
the  more  you  "  stir  these  troubled  waters,"  "  confusion  will 
become  worse  confounded."  If  j^ou  undervalue  external 
order,  j^ou  are  frowned  upon  by  the  palpable  declarations  of 
the  Bible,  and  of  all  the  standards  of  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 

*  The  language  which  I  here  use  is  justified  by  your's,  p.  25  of  the 
Christian*s  Magazine. 


76  hobart's  apology 

byterian  churches.  And  if  you  consider  obedience  to  exter- 
nal order  (though  it  be  commanded  by  God)  as  a  condition 
of  salvation,  you  are  in  danger  of  encroaching  on  the  Cal- 
vinistic  principle,  that  faith,  as  the  infallible  testimony  of  our 
being  the  objects  of  the  decree  of  everlasting  election,  is 
the  point  on  which  our  salvation  turns. 

The  truth  is,  the  divine  commands  are  all  obligatory.  All 
comparison  of  the  relative  importance  or  obligation  of  these 
commands,  in  order  to  determine  vv^hich  we  may  with  impu- 
nity neglect  or  violate,  is  criminal  and  impious.  Let  me 
direct  your  attention  to  the  language  of  one,  who,  though  a 
prelate  of  the  Church  of  England,  is,  I  suspect,  a  favourite 
writer  with  you.  Bishop  Butler,  in  his  "  Analogy,"*  thus 
settles  the  point  of  the  comparative  obligation  of  the  com- 
mands of  God.  "  Our  obligations  to  obey  all  God's  com- 
mands whatever  are  absolute  and  indispensable^'^  and  commands 
merely  positive,  admitted  to  be  from  him,  lay  us  under  a 
moral  obligation  to  obey  them — an  obligation  moral  in  the 
strictest  and  most  proper  sense."  Yes,  sir,  "  he  who  keep- 
eth  the  whole  law,  and  yet "  habitually  and  wilfully  "  offends 
in  one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all."  And  were  the  "  whole 
world "  laid  at  my  feet,  it  should  not  tempt  me  to  run  the 
hazard  of  that  believer,  however  much  he  may  boast  of  the 
assurance  of  his  faith,  who  habitually  and  wilfully  violates 
"  one  of  the  least  commandments  "  of  his  divine  Lord  ;  even 
though  it  be  that  external  order  which  you  are  so  confident  is 
not  the  hinging  point  of  salvation. 

*  p.  208,  Boston  edition. 

t  Observe,  sir,  this  acute  and  accurate  reasoner  uses  the  term  indis- 
pensable in  the  same  sense  in  which  I  apply  it  in  the  Companion  for  the 
Altar. 


FOR   APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  77 


LETTER    VIII. 
Sir, 

It  is  a  most  grievous  offence  to  you  that  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  "  unchurch "  those  who  reject  it,  and  leave 
them  to  *' uncovenanted  mercy."  This  "dreadful  excom- 
munication" produces  the  most  awful  effects.  Your  imagi- 
nation fires — ^your  bosom  swells — the  voice  of  thunder  pro- 
claims— Mr.  H.  and  his  compeers  make  "  the  only  alterna- 
tive, EpiscoPAcy  or  Perdition  " — "  The  hair  stands  up  like 
quills  upon  the  fretful  porcupine " — "  The  warm  blood  is 
frozen  at  its  fountain."  I  am  persuaded  that  the  candid 
reader,  who  has  impartially  considered  my  defence  against 
these  charges,  in  the  preceding  pages,  will  smile  when  he 
sees  you  so  violently  agitated  at  a  phantom  which  possesses 
no  terrors  but  what  your  vivid  imagination  has  thrown  around 
it.  In  fact,  sir,  I  deny  that  in  an  unqualified  sense,  I  have 
unchurched  non-Episcopalians.  What  says  the  "  Companion 
for  the  Altar .?"  "  To  experience  the  full  and  exalted  efficacy 
of  the  sacraments,  we  must  receive  them  from  a  valid  autho- 
rity."* What  says  the  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and 
Fasts  ?  "  The  Church  of  Christ  is  a  visible  institution.  It 
is  to  be  known  by  its  priesthood,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  established  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  under  the  three 
orders  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons ;  by  its  doctrine^ 
and  by  its  sacraments.  Where  these  are  as  Christ  ordained 
them,  there  is  the  Church  of  Christ ;  where  these,  or  any  of 
them,  are  wanting,  there  the  church  is  not ;  at  least,  not  in  a 
sound  and  perfect  state.'^^'\  As  far  as  any  particular  church 
corrupts  the  doctrine  and  sacraments,  or  renounces  the  duly 
authorized  ministry  of  Christ's  Church,  so  far  she  ceases  to 
be  the  church  "in  a  sound  and  perfect  state."     Nor  do  I 

*  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  203. 

t  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  56  and  57. 

7# 


78  hobart's  apology 

leave  non-Episcopalians  in  any  other  sense  to  "  uncovenanted 
mercy,"  than  you  do  those  who,  though  they  have  faith  in 
Christ,  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  be  baptized,  or  to  receive 
the  Lord's  supper.  For  as  they  reject  those  sacraments 
which  (yourself  being  judge)  are  not  merely  the  "  signs," 
but  the  "  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,"  of  ''  ingrafting 
into  Christ,"  of  all  the  "  benefits  of  Christ's  sacrifice,"*  they 
surely  cannot  be  said  to  be  regularly  and  fully  "  within  the 
covenant,"  "  ingrafted  into  Christ,"  or  entitled  to  the  "bene- 
fits of  his  sacrifice." 

My  business  now  shall  be  to  show  that  I  do  not  proceed 
as  far  in  this  business  of  unchurching  as  my  accuser.  You 
warmly  recommend  Mr.  M'Leod's  Catechism.  It  would  be 
an  affront  to  suppose  that  you  have  not  attentively  weighed 
the  principles  in  that  book ;  and  after  this  solemn  examina- 
tion, to  recommend  them  as  reviewer,  ex  cathedra,  is  to 
make  them  your  own.  Let  us  now  see/how  far  your  princi- 
ples "  unchurch "  Christians,  and  lejive  them  to  "  uncove- 
nanted mercy." 

1.  Mr.  M'L.  and  yourself  unchurch  the  Quakers.  For 
you  make  "  a  legitimate  ministry  "  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  TRUE  church  ; "  "f  and  as  the  Quakers  certainly  have 
not  what  you  consider  a  legitimate  ministry,  they  are  not  of 
the  true  church. 

2.  Mr.  M'L.  and  yourself  wwcAwrc^  Episcopalians.  You 
call  a  legitimate  ministry  "ecclesiastical  officers  ordained 
according  to  Christ's  appointment."  J  Now,  as  yon  con- 
sider the  power  of  the  Bishop  in  ordination  an  "  usurpation  " 
of  course,  those  ministers  who  are  Episcopally  ordained  are 
not  "  ordained  according  to  Christ's  appointment ;"  conse- 
quently, are  not  legitimate  ministers:  and  as  "  a  legitimate 
ministry  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  true  church," 
you  make  the  Episcopal  Church  not  the  true  church. 

*  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches,  chap.  xxv.  sec. 
1.  28,  1.  29. 
t  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  8,  Q.  18.  %  p.  8,  20. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  79 

Mr.  M^L.  and  yourself  maintain,  (Eccles.  Catec.  p.  29. 
Q.  67)  "  that  a  person  who  is  not  ordained  by  a  Presbytery 
has  no  right  to  be  received  as  a  minister  of  Clirist :  his 
administration  of  ordinances  is  invalid :  no  divine  blessing  is 
promised  upon  his  labours :  it  is  rebellion  against  the  head 
of  the  church  to  support  him  in  his  pretensions :  Christ  has 
excluded  him  in  his  providence  from  admission  through  the 
ordinary  door:  and  if  he  has  no  evidence  of  miraculous 
power  to  testify  his  extraordinarj^  mission,  he  is  an  impos- 
tor." What  is  this  but  to  unchurch  Episcopalians,  to  pro- 
nounce their  ministers  "  impostors,"  and  their  ordinances 
"  invaHd  .?"  For  Deacons,  one  of  the  orders  of  Episcopal 
ministers,  are  not  "  ordained  by  a  Presbytery,"  but  by  the 
Bishop,  who  alone  lays  on  his  hands.  An  Episcopal  Dea- 
con, therefore,  (according  to  yourself  and  Mr.  M'L.)  is 
"an  impostor" — his  administration  of  baptism  "invalid" — 
"  no  divine  blessing  is  promised  on  his  labours "  of  preach- 
ing :  and  Episcopalians  are  guilty  of  "  rebellion  against  the 
head  of  the  church  in  supporting  him  in  his  pretensions !" 
In  the  same  predicament  stand  Episcopal  Presbyters  :  for 
they  are  ordained  by  the  Bishop.  The  associating  of  the 
Presbyters  with  him  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  only  an 
ecclesiastical  regulation,  to  denote  the  concurrence  of  the 
Presbyters,  and  to  guard  the  exercise  of  the  Episcopal 
power  of  ordination.*     This  regulation  was  introduced  into 

*  "  Doth  it  hereupon  follow  that  the  power  of  ordination  was  not  prin- 
cipally and  originally  in  the  Bishop .'  Our  Saviour  hath  said  unto  his 
Apostles,  With  me  ye  shall  sit  and  judge  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ; 
yet  we  know  that  to  him  alone  it  belongeth  to  judge  the  world,  and  that 
to  him  all  judgment  is  given.  The  association  of  Presbyters  is  no  suffi- 
cient proof  that  the  power  of  ordination  was  in  them,  but  rather  that  it 
never  was  in  them  we  may  hereby  understand ;  for  that  no  man  is  able 
to  show  either  Deacon  or  Presbyter  ordained  by  Presbyters  only,  and  his 
ordination  accounted  lawful  in  any  ancient  part  of  the  church ;  every- 
where examples  being  found  both  of  Deacons  and  Presbyters  ordained  by 
Bishops  alone  oftentimes,  neither  even  in  that  respect  thought  insuffi- 
cient."   Hooker.    Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  vii.  sect.  6. 


80  hobart's  apology 

the  Western  church  only  bj'^  a  canon  of  the  fourth  century  ; 
the  Eastern  church  having  to  this  day  uniformly  retained  the 
mode  which  before  prevailed,  of  "  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands"  of  the  Bishop  alone.  An  ordination  by  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Bishop,  Episcopalians  consider  as 
valid,  though  not  according  to  ecclesiastical  usage.  The 
third  order  of  Episcopal  ministers,  Bishops,  being  "  not 
ordained  by  a  Presbytery,"  but  by  Bishops ,  whose  powers 
are  expressly  called  "usurpations,"  stand  in  the  predica- 
ment with  the  other  two  orders.  Thus,  then.  Episcopal 
ministers,  being  "  not  ordained  by  a  Presbytery j'^  have  "  no 
right  to  be  received  as  ministers  of  Christ :  their  administra- 
tion of  ordinances  is  invalid :  no  divine  blessing  is  promised 
upon  their  labours  :"  Episcopalians  are  guilty  of  "  rebellion 
against  the  head  of  the  church  in  supporting  them  in  their 
pretensions  :"  and  as  they  have  "  no  evidence  of  miraculous 
powers    to   testify   their    extraordinary   mission,    they   are 

IMPOSTORS." 

3.  Mr.  M'L.  and  yourself  unchurch  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  the  Greek  Church.  It  would  be  wasting  time  to  prove 
that  as  they  have  none  of  your  characteristics  of  the  true 
church  J  neither  "  sound  doctrine,  a  legitimate  ministry,  nor  a 
proper  use  of  the  sacraments,"*  they  are  richly  deserving  of 
being  viewed  as  "  synagogues  of  Satan  !  " 

4.  But  what  is  most  astonishing  (I  tremble  while  I  record 
it,)  Mr.  M'L.  and  yourself  unchurch  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland  !  You  make  "  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  their  offices  according  to  Christ's  direction,"  "f  an 
essential  characteristic  of  that  "  legitimate  ministry  "  which 
is  necessary  to  "  the  true  church.^"*  And  it  is  notorious  that 
the  fundamental  cause  of  the  separation  of  the  sects  of  Sece- 
ders  from  whom  you  and  Mr.  M^L.  are  descended,  (and  the 
principles  of  which  separation  you  still  sacredly  maintain)  is, 
that  the    "ministry,"  the    "ecclesiastical  officers"    of  the 

*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  8-18.. 
t  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  8-20. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  81 

Church  of  Scotland,  did  not  "  discharge  the  duties  of  their 
office  agreeably  to  the  direction  of  Christ. "^^  Of  course,  they 
are  not  a  legitimate  ministr}^ ;  and,  therefore,  the  Church  of 
Scotland  is  not  the  true  church ! 

5.  But,  alas !  it  has  fallen  to  my  unhappy  lot  to  record, 
that  "in  the  beginning  of  the  19th  century,"*  two  distin- 
guished divines  have  "  committed  to  writing,"  a  sentence  of 
excision  on  the  whole  visible  church  !  Mr.  M'L.  and  your- 
self maintain  that  "  the  characteristics  of  the  true  church, 
are  sound  doctrine,  a  legitimate  ministry,  and  the  proper  use 
of  the  sacraments."  Now  there  is  no  church  (Mr.  M^L. 
being  judge)  f  which  is  perfectly  '^  sound  in  doctrine."  There 
is  no  church,  the  ministry  of  which  discharge  their  office  in 
all  respects,  "  agreeably  to  Christ's  direction  ;"  which  it  is 
necessary  they  should  do,  in  order  to  be  "  a  legitimate  min- 
istry. "J  There  is  no  church,  whose  ministry  administer  the 
sacraments  in  all  respects  "  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  institu- 
tion ;"  which  is  necessary  to  "  the  proper  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments." §  And  as  all  these  Mr.  M'L.  and  yourself  make 
necessary  to  "  the  true  church,  it  follows,  that  there  is  no 
true  church  on  earth! !!  Mr.  M'L.  and  Dr.  M.  by  "a  single 
dash  of  the  pen,"  blot  out  that  "church,"  against  which  its 
divine  founder  promised  "  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  pre- 
vail." It  is  true,  you  soften  "  this  sweeping  sentence"  by 
"some  reliefs,"  and  some  "  concessions."  ||  But  they  are 
"  not  worth  accepting,"  for  they  are  "  in  direct  repug- 
nance" to  your  definitions  of  the  true  church,  and  only 
show  that  "  j'^ou  flinch  from  the  consequences  of  your  doc- 
trine." God  forbid  that  I  should  believe  you  serious  in  this 
"  dreadful  excommunication."  But  I  insist  that  a  specimen 
of  fairer  deduction  from  acknowledged  premises  does  not 
grace  any  page  of  the  "  review  of  the  Essays  on  Episco- 
pacy." 

*  I  borrow  these  words  from  Mr.  M<L.   Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  113. 
t  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  7-15.  %  p.  8-20.         §  p.  9-21. 

II  I  have  recourse  again  to  your  own  language. 


82  hobart's  apology 

The  fact  is,  that  Mr.  M'L.  applies  to  the  "  true  church" 
the  characteristics  of  a  sound  and  perfect  church*  I  really 
think  you  should  call  Mr.  M'L.  to  an  account  for  the 
dilemma  in  which  he  has  involved  both  you  and  himself 
through  want  of  precision  in  the  use  of  terms.  I  can  give 
you  another  specimen  of  this  gentleman's  accuracy  in  his 
definitions.  Christians  in  general  have  hitherto  supposed 
that  baptism  was  the  "  sacrament  ordained  b}"  Jesus  Christ 
for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptised  into  the  visible 
church."!  But  Mr.  M'L.  has  found  out  that  the  sacra- 
ments are  to  be  administered  only  "  to  regularly  received 
members  of  the  church  ;"J  that  is,  baptism,  which  is  one  of 
the  sacraments,  and  by  which  a  person  becomes  a  regularly 
received  member  of  the  church,"  is  not  to  be  administered 
to  him  until  he  is  a  "regularly  received  member!!"  It  is 
really  curious  to  observe  Mr.  M'L.'s  application  of  scripture. 
For  example,  he  proves  that  the  "  Shorter  Catechism,  com- 
piled by  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  is  the  most 
complete  and  comprehensive  summary  of  the  doctrines  of  !he 
gospel,"  from  the  text,  2  Tim.  i.  13.  "  Hold  fast  the  form 
of  sound  words. "§  He  proves  that  "  the  form  of  church 
government  is  wisely  adapted  to  every  state  of  the  church," 
from  the  text.  Rev.  i.  20.  "  The  mystery  of  the  seven  stars, 
which  thou  sawest  in  my  right  hand,  and  the  seven  golden 
candlesticks.  The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the  seven 
churches ;  and  the  seven  candlesticks  which  thou  sawest 
are  the  seven  churches. "||  He  proves  that  "  Presbyterial 
order  is  divinely  appointed  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints, 
and  all  are  bound  to  submit  to  it,"  from  the  text.  Rev.  iii. 

*  Mr.  M'L.'s  definition  of  a  true  church,  which  indeed  proves  there 
is  not  a  true  church  on  earth,  appears  not  only  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Cate- 
chism, but  in  the  standards  of  the  church  of  which  he  is  a  minister.  See 
"  Reformation  Principles,"  part  ii.  chap.  xx.  sect.  7. 

t  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxviii.  1. 

\  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  9. 

§  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  S.  ||  p.  14. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  83 

22.  "He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith 
unto  the  churches."*  He  proves  the  "reasonableness  and 
excellency  of  the  Presbyterian  constitution  of  church  govern- 
ment," from  the  text,  Ezek.  xliii.  12.  "  The  whole  limit 
thereof  round  about  shall  be  holy.  Behold,  this  is  the  law 
of  the  house. ""f  And,  wonderful  discovery  !  he  proves  that 
the  deacon's  office  "  respects  only  temporal  affairs,"  from 
the  text,  Rom.  xii.  8.  "  He  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with 
simplicity."!  Really,  I  should  not  despair  that  Mr.  M^L. 
would  be  able  satisfactorily  to  prove  from  scripture,  what  all 
Lord  Peter's  bulls  have  hitherto  failed  to  establish,  that  "  a 
twelve-penny  leaf  is  a  shoulder  of  mutton  !"  Yet  this  is 
the  gentleman  who  has  kindly  undertaken  to  instruct  us, 
poor  simple  Americans,  in  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical 
government ;  and  who  has  written  in  the  most  contemptuous 
manner  of  the  principles  and  institutions  of  the  Episcopal 
Church. 

You  maintain  that  faith  alone  is  the  condition  of  salvation, 
and  that  it  is  an  abominable  error  to  rank  participation  of  the 
ordinances  by  the  hands  of  Christ's  authorized  ministers 
among  the  appointed  conditions  of  salvation. 

From  the  references  which  I  have  occasionally  made  in 
the  preceding  pages  to  the  Presbyterian  confessions  of  faith, 
I  think  it  must  be  evident  that  I  do  not  lay  any  greater  stress 
on  external  order ^  on  communion  with  the  church  through  its 
ministry  and  ordinances,  than  the  standards  and  confessions 
of  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  will  warrant. 

Do  I  maintain  that  (except  in  cases  of  unavoidable  igno- 
rance or  involuntary  error)  it  is  onl}-  by  communion  with  the 
visible  church,  that  we  can  obtain  a  title  to  the  blessings  of 
salvation }  I  open  the  confessions  of  faith  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian churches,  and  find  them  maintaining  the  same  doctrine, 
"  The  visible  church," — is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is 

*  p.  31.  t  P-  87.  t  P-  35. 


84  hobart's  apology 

no  ordimsixy  possibility  of  salvation.''''*  I  shield  myself  under 
your  great  master  Calvin,  who  declares,  "that  departing 
from  the  church  is  a  denying  of  God  and  Christ. ''''f 

Do  I  maintain  that  communion  with  the  visible  church 
can  only  be  maintained  by  the  participation  of  the  sacra- 
ments from  the  hands  of  duly  authorized  ministers  ?  I  only 
avow  Presbyterian  doctrine.  On  Presbyterian  principles  a 
ministry  and  ordinances  are  essential  to  the  visible  church. 
"Unto  this  Catholic  visible  church  (say  the  Presb}i;erian 
confessions  of  faith)  Christ  hath  given  the  ministry^  oracles 
and  ordinances  of  God  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the 
saints  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  doth  by  his 
own  presence  and  spirit,  according  to  his  promise,  make  them 
effectual  thereunto. '''X  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are 
"  holy  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,"  appointed 
by  Christ  for  our  "  solemn  admission  into  the  Church,"  and 
for  "  confirming  and  sealing  our  interest  in  him  ;"  and  they 
are  not  to  be  "  dispensed  by  any  but  by  a  minister  of  the 
word,  lawfully  ordained. "§  The  great  reformer,  Calvin, 
holds  the  same  language — "  Forgiveness  of  sins  is  a  benefit 
so  proper  to  the  churchy  that  we  cannot  otherwise  enjoy  it, 
but  if  we  abide  in  the  communion  thereof.  It  is  distributed 
unto  us  by  the  ministers  and  pastors,  either  by  preaching  the 
gospel,  or  by  ministering  of  the  sacraments.  Wherefore  let 
every  one  of  us  think  this  to  be  his  duty,  no  where  else  to  seek 
forgiveness  of  sins,  than  where  the^  Lord  hath  left  it."||  Is  it 
possible  to  lay  greater  stress  on  external  order  than  Calvin 
does,  who  declares  "  neither  the  light  and  heat  of  the  sun, 
nor  meat  and  drink,  are  so  necessary  to  nourish  and  sustain 
this  present  life,  as  the  office  of  the  apostles  and  pastors  is 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  2. 

t  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  i.  sect.  10. 

X  Prysbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  xxv.  3. 

§  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.xxvii.  xxviii.  xxix. 

II  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  i.  sect.  22. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  85 

necessary  to  preserve  the  church."*  Would  any  person  have 
believed  it  possible,  that  a  disciple  of  Calvin,  a  minister  who 
holds  the  sentiments  above  quoted  from  the  Presbyterian 
confession  of  faith,  would  impeach  me  with  laying  an  undue 
stress  upon  ^'  external  order  V^  Would  any  person  have 
believed  it  possible,  that  a  minister  who  holds  these  senti- 
ments, who  even  makes  the  comfort  which  a  believer  takes 
in  his  faith  to  depend  upon  "the  offer  of  reconciliation" 
being  "  made  to  him  by  the  mouth  of  ministers  having  com- 
mission to  that  ejvsc/,"'!'  should  yet  impeach  me  for  insisting 
on  "  soundness  in  external  order,"  as  one  of  the  conditions 
of  salvation  }  Yes,  sir,  you  are  the  man  !  But,  would  you 
shield  from  guilt  any  of  your  own  people,  however  warm 
and  strong  his  faith,  who,  emboldened  by  your  declamation 
against  me  for  insisting  on  the  ministry  and  ordinances  as 
conditions  of  salvation,  should  reject  them,  as  derogating 
from  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ^  Would  you  not  urge  on  his  conscience 
that  he  was  hazarding  his  salvation,  by  impiously  contemning 
the  divine  "  seals  of  the  covenant,"  those  "  ordinances  in 
which  the  covenant  is  dispensed,"!  and  by  thus  rejecting 
covenanted  mercy  }  Now,  sir,  does  not  this  reasoning  involve 
the  very  principle  for  which  you  so  bitterly  condemn  me — 
confining  covenanted  mercy  to  the  ministry  and  ordinances 
appointed  by  Chiist  ?  My  confining  the  ministry  and  ordi- 
nances appointed  by  Christ  to  the  Episcopal  ministry  and 
ordinances,  makes  no  difference  as  to  the  principle  involved, 
and  which  you  so  loudly  condemn.  This  principle  is,  the 
making  of  the  blessings  of  salvation  dependent  on  "  external 
order. ^'^  The  criminality  of  this  principle,  which,  according 
to  you,  places  "  external  order  on  a  level  with  the  merits  of 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  iif.  sect.  2. 

t  Constitution  of  the  Associate-Reformed  Church,  p.  603.  "  Sum  and 
substance  of  saving  knowledge,"  originally  set  forth  by  the  Westminster 
'.'.Assembly  of  Divines." 

X  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  vii.  6. 
8 


86  hobart's  apology 

Christ  in  the  article  of  acceptance  before  God,'^  is  the  same 
whether  this  ^'  external  order "  be  "  Episcopal,  or  Presby- 
terian, or  Independent."*  Really,  sir,  in  my  humble  judg- 
ment, candour,  consistency,  and  regard  for  the  sacred  princi- 
ples of  your  own  church,  should  make  you  blush  whenever 
you  open  a  page  of  your  "  review  of  the  Essays  on  Episco- 
pacy." Pardon  me  if  I  assert  that  it  is  "  vox  et  preterea 
nihil,  mere  noise,  and  need  give  no  disquiet  to  the  most 
timid  "f  Churchman,  nor  shake  him  a  moment  from  his  prin- 
ciples. I  shall  be  justified  in  addressing  to  you  remarks 
similar  in  spirit  to  those  with  which  you  seek  to  rouse  the 
conscience  of  Dr.  Nott.  Your  talents  and  acquirements, 
which  are  certainly  of  no  ordinary  kind,  and,  above  all, 
your  sacred  character  should  lead  you  to  spurn  the  ignoble 
arts  of  crushing  a  cause  which  you  oppose,  by  blackening 
it  with  consequences  disclaimed  by  its  advocates,  and  not 
fairly  deducible  from  its  principles.  There  is  not  an  obser- 
vation by  which  you  attempt  to  prejudge  me,  which  may  not 
be  directed  with  equal  force  against  your  own  principles. 
The  Quaker,  who  on  your  principles  does  not  possess  that 
ministry  and  those  ordinances  which  are  the  "  seals  of  the 
covenant,"  and  by  which  "  it  is  dispensed,"  may  exclaim — 
What !  will  "  no  ^repentance  toward  God  ;'  no  ^  faith  toward 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;'  no  conformity  to  his  image ;  no 
zeal  for  his  glory,  be  of  any  avail  .^"  {  Will  the  "  simple 
fact  of  my  separation  from  the  authorized,  that  is  to  say," 
Dr.  M.'s  "  priesthood,  mar  my  religion,  and  render  it  stark 
naught .?"  Does  then  Dr.  M.  make,  for  every  Quaker,  how- 
ever humble,  pious,  and  holy  his  faith,  the  only  alternative, 
submission  to  a  hireling  priesthood  or  perdition  ! !  "  Alas  ! 
alas !  pudet !  pudet ! "  The  mode  j^ou  pursue  will  exalt  the 
triumphs  of  the  infidel ;  will  enable  him  to  push  some  insu- 
lated doctrine  of  the  gospel  to  the  extreme,  and  then  to 
exclaim.  These  are  "positions  of  deep-toned  horror  !" 
When  I  see  you,  instead  of  dispassionately  investigating 
*  Christianas  Magazine,  p.  98.  f  P-  10^-  X  P-  94. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  87 

my  principles,  urge  against  me  charges  which  may  be  all 
made  to  recoil  upon  your  own,  I  am  "  held  in  suspense 
between  the  gaze  of  astonishment  and  the  swell  of  indigna- 
tion." May  not  such  conduct  with  great  propriety  be  con- 
sidered as  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  your  cause  ?  When 
the  most  potent  champion  of  a  cause  resorts  to  such  disin- 
genuous arts,  and,  at  the  outset^  attempts  to  rouse  prejudice 
and  passion,  there  is  at  least  strong  presumption  that  the 
cause  is  a  weak  one.  Let  then  this  system  of  denunciation^ 
of  illegitimate  deduction^  be  renounced.  Test  my  principles 
by  SCRIPTURE,  as  elucidated  and  supported  by  antiquity. 
Wrest  from  my  superstructure  this  sacred  foundation,  and  I 
will  join  with  you  in  chaunting  hallelujahs  to  its  downfall. 
But  while  the  venerable  edifice  of  Episcopacy  rests  its  solid 
base  on  the  rock  of  ages,  it  will  proudly  defy  the  tempests 
of  invective  and  denunciation  which  roll  against  its  lofty 
battlements. 


LETTER   IX. 

Sir, 

To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,  to  the  word  of  God, 
and  to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostolic  and  primitive  age,  let 
us  then  bring  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  You  affect  indeed 
to  consider  Presbyterianism  as  coming  down  to  us  with  the 
awful  and  venerable  sanction  of  ages  ;  while  the  upstart  pre- 
tensions of  Episcopacy  are  to  be  "  hunted  "  down  as  equally 
novel  and  "  arrogant."  This  is  an  assurance  which  would 
qualify  a  man  for  the  task  of  jDroving  that  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  are  forgeries  of  recent  ages.  The  very 
same  testimonies,  which  establish  that  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  are  genuine  and  authentic,  determine-^the  fact  of 
the  Apostolic  institution  and  universal  reception  of  Episco- 
pacy.*    This   is  acknowledged  by  the   learned    Stilling- 

*  This  fact  is  proved  by  the  learned  Leslie,  the  author  of  that  incompa- 


88  hobart's  apology 

FLEET,  the  auther  of  the  "  Irenicum,"  to  which  the  Chris- 
tian's Magazine  will  probably  be  indebted  for  many  of  its 
arguments  against  Episcopacy.  This  book  was  written  by 
Stillingfleet  as  the  early  age  of  twenty-four  years,  in  the 
vain  hope  of  healing  the  divisions  on  the  subject  of  church 
order,  by  a  system  of  mutual  concession.  Accordingly  he 
labours  to  refute  the  opinion,  that  there  is  any  precise  form 
of  church  government,  extending  to  all  matters  of  discipline, 
rites,  and  ceremonies,  laid  down  in  scripture.  He  thus 
bears  as  hard  on  those  who  maintain  that  Presbyterian  gov- 
ernment^ in  all  its  parts,  is  established  in  scripture,  as  he  does 
on  those  who  maintain  the  same  concerning  Episcopal  gov- 
ernment. Presbyterian  writers  are  very  fond  of  employing 
the  arguments  which  he  uses  against  their  opponents,  while 
they  pay  no  respect  to  those  which  he  urges  against  them- 
selves. It  is  certain  that  Stillingfleet  retracted  all  those 
opinions  in  his  ^'  Irenicum^''''  which  militated  against  the 
Apostolic  institution  of  Bishops.  He  apologizes  for  this  work 
in  his  "  Preface"  to  the  "Unreasonableness  of  Separation." 
"  Will  you  not  allow,"  says  he,  "  one  single  person  who 
happened  to  write  about  these  matters  when  he  was  very 
ijoung^  in  twenty  years  time  of  the  most  busy  and  thoughtful 
part  of  his  life,  to  see  reason  to  alter  his  judgment  1 ''''  In  a 
sermon  which  was  the  result  of  his  most  mature  judgment 
and  examination,  we  find  him  declaring,  "  I  cannot  find  an}'^ 
argument  of  force  in  the  New  Testament  to  prove  that  ever 
the  Christian  churches  were  under  the  sole  government  of 
Presbyters.''''  "  This  succession  was  not  in  mere  presidency 
of  order  J  but  the  Bishops  succeeded  the  Apostles  in  the  gov- 
ernment over  those  churches."  "There  is  as  great  reason  to 
believe  the  Apostolical  succession  to  be  of  divine  institution^ 

rable  tract,  the  "Short  Method  with  the  Deists,"  in  his  treatises  on 
Episcopacy,  published  in  the  "  Scholar  Armed."  And  an  able  writer  of 
our  own  country,  in  the  Churchman's  Monthly  Magazine  for  November, 
1806,  has  taken  up  the  primitive  evidence  for  the  divine  authority  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  proved  that  the  very  same  evidence 
supports  Episcopacy. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  89 

as  the  canon  of  scripture^  or  the  observation  of  the  Lord's 
day."* 

Episcopacy  has  the  sanction  of  ancient^  universal  usage ; 
while  Presbyterianism  sprang  up  but  a  few  centuries  ago. 
At  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  Episcopacy  was  the  uni- 
versally acknowledged  government.  Presbyterianism  was 
looked  upon  as  an  upstart,  utterly  destitute  of  all  pretensions 
to  antiquity  ;  insomuch  that  we  find  Hooker  declaring,  "  A 
very  strange  thing,  sure  it  were,  that  such  a  discipline  (Pres- 
byterianism) as  you  speak  of,  should  be  taught  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  in  the  word  of  God,  and  no  church  have 
found  it  out,  nor  received  it,  till  this  present  time  .'"|  Accord- 
ingly we  find  Hooker  repeating  the  bold  challenge,  "  We 
require  you  to  find  out  but  one  church  upon  the  face  of  the 
whole  earth,  that  hath  been  ordered  bj^  your  discipline,  or 
hath  not  been  ordered  by  ours,  that  is  to  say,  by  JEpiscopal 
regiment,  since  the  time  that  the  blessed  Apostles  were  here 
conversant  ^X 

What  then  is  the  state  of  the  case  ?  An  order  of  minis- 
ters, superior  to  Presbj^ters  and  Deacons,  and  styled  Bishops, 
possess  the  power  of  ordination,  and  the  supreme  power  of 
governing  the  church.  We  look  back  a  very  few  centuries, 
and  find  them  in  universal  possession  of  these  powers,  of 
which  indeed  they  have  been  stripped  but  in  only  a  ver}^  few 
Christian  churches.  They  hold  their  rights  therefore  by 
prescription,  by  long  immemorial  usage.  This  is  a  title  which 
has  peculiar  claims  to  the  respect  and  obedience  of  all  friends 
to  institutions  sanctioned  by  the  wisdom  of  ages.  You,  of 
all  others,  are  bound  to  respect  it.  For  you  would  scorn 
being  ranked  among  those  who  are  "  given  to  change,"  and 
who  desire  to  "remove  the  ancient  landmarks.'^'' — Poh — ^you 
will  say — the  Pope  of  Rome  supports  his  corrupt  throne  by 
the  same  plea,  long  immemorial  usage.  But  stop,  sir,  if  you 
please,  not  so  fast.     No  Protestant  will  admit  this  plea  of 

*  Sermon  preached  by  Stillingfleet  at  an  ordination  at  St.  Paul's,  1684. 
t  Preface  to  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  sect.  4.  |  Sect.  4. 

8* 


90  hobart's  apology 

popery.  We  can  fix  within  a  certain  period  the  commence- 
ment of  the  reign  of  antichrist.  A  distinguished  divine, 
whose  authority  I  think  you  will  not  dispute,  when  speaking 
of  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  antichrist,  declares, 
"  The  earliest  period  which  can  be  suggested  is  the  year 
325."*  Yes,  sir,  prior  to  that  period  Protestants  are  able  to 
disprove,  by  the  most  abundant  and  unequivocal  testimonies 
from  primitive  writers,  the  false  pretensions  of  the  Papal 
power.  And  can  you,  within  this  period,  produce  any  testi- 
mony against  Episcopacy  ^  No,  sir ;  the  challenge  of 
Hooker  may  be  here  repeated — "  Produce  one  church  that 
was  not  governed  by  Episcopal  regiment,"  and  we  give  up 
our  cause.  Where,  then,  is  the  parallel  between  Episcopacy 
and  Popery  ?  The  Pope  of  Rome  did  not  arrive  to  "  full 
stature  "  until  the  fourth,  and  the  generality  of  Protestants 
maintain,  on  stronger  evidence,  until  the  seventh  century. "f" 
But  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  are  compelled  to  trace  it 
back  to  the  Apostolic  age  ;  J  and  even  then  to  rest  the  change 
from  Presbj'^terianism  to  Episcopacy  on  mere  conjecture.  In 
vain  they  seek  for  explicit  testimony,  for  express  record  of 
so  extraordinary  a  fact.  If  Episcopacy  be  an  usurpation, 
how  haj)pens  it  that  the  discovery  has  never  been  made  until 
within  a  very  late  period  ? 

But  against  the  supposition  that  the  powers  which  Bishops 
exercise  by  long  and  immemorial  usage,  were  originally  an 
usurpation,  there  is  an  argument,  which  even  with  every 
candid  Presbyterian  must  be  conclusive.  If  Episcopacy 
were  an  usurpation  ;  if  the  power  of  the  Bishops,  like  that 
of  the  Pope,  were  "  anti-Christian  and  unscriptural,"  would 
not  the  illustrious  Reformers  have  denounced  Episcopacy 
with  as  much  zeal  as  they  did  Popery }  To  suppose  that 
they  would  not,  is  to  impeach  at  once  their  talents  and  their 

*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Livingston,  in  his  Missionary  Sermon,  p.  58. 

t  "  The  rise  of  antichrist  is  to  be  dated  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  seventh 
century."     So  says  Mr.  M'L.  in  his  "  Reformation  Principles,"  p.  42. 

X  Blondel,  one  of  the  most  learned  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  supposes 
that  it  took  its  rise  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  140. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  91 

sincerity.  The  hierarchy^  in  its  various  modifications,  was  an 
object  of  jealousy,  of  close,  bold,  and  unrestrained  investiga- 
tion ;  and  the  primitive  writers  were  faithfully  explored  in 
order  to  test  its  pretensions.  If,  under  these  circumstances, 
the  Reformers,*  while  they  denounced  the  Pope  as  "  anti- 
christ," the  "  man  of  sin,"  the  "  son  of  perdition,"  not  only 
refrained  from  censuring  Episcopacy,  but  spoke  of  such  an 
Episcopacy  as  the  Church  of  England  possesses  in  the  most 
respectful  terms,  I  think,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that 
Popery  and  Episcopacy  are  not  equally  untenable,  and  that 
Bishops  may  still  claim  for  their  power,  prescription^  long 
and  immemorial  usage. 

The  fact  is  remarkable  and  indisputable,  that  the  great 
Reformers,  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  divines  of  the  Reformed 
churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  in  opposing  the  hier- 
archy, opposed  only  the  corrupt  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  approved  in  the  strongest  language  of  a  primitive 
Episcopacy  J  such  as  the  Church  of  England  possessed;  and 
lamented  the  imperious  circumstances  which  deprived  them 
of  it.  Calvin,  in  his  book  concerning  the  "  necessity  of 
reforming  the  church,"  makes  a  declaration  which-  has  fre- 
quently been  adduced  :  "  If  they  would  give  us  such  an  hier- 
archy, in  which  the  Bishops  should  so  excel,  as  that  they 
did  not  refuse  to  be  subject  to  Christ,"  &c.  &c.  "  then  I  will 
confess  that  they  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas,  if  any  such 
shall  be  found,  who  will  not  reverence  it,  and  submit  them- 
selves to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience."!     What  strong  lan- 

*  The  Bishop  here  manifestly  speaks  of  the  continental  "  Reformers." 
— Editor. 

t  "  Talem  nobis  hierarchiam  si  exhibeant,  in  qua  sic  emineantEpisco- 
pi  ut  Christo  subesse  non  recusent,  ut  ab  illo  tanquam  unico  capite  pen- 
deant,  et  ad  ipsum  referantur ;  in  qua  sic  inter  se  fraternam  societatem 
colant,  ut  non  alio  nodo  quam  ejus  veritate  sint  coUigati,  tum  vero  nullo 
non  anathemate  dignos  fateor,  si  qui  erunt,  qui  non  earn  reverentur,  sum- 
maque  obedientia  observent."  This  declaration  of  Calvin  has  been 
often  quoted.  I  have  examined  the  tract  de  necessitate,  reformandcB 
ecclesicB,  which  is  contained  in  a  volume  of  the  works  of  Calvin,  published 


92  hobart's  apology 

guage  is  this  ?  He  could  not  get  an  Episcopacy  but  what 
was  subject  to  the  Pope  of  Rome.  But,  says  he,  ''if  they 
would  give  us  an  hierarchy  subject  to  Christ  alone,"  he  not 
only  professes  a  willingness  to  receive  it,  but  denounces  an 
"  anathema  "  against  all  who  should  reject  it.  Na}",  so  firm 
appears  his  conviction,  that  such  an  Episcopacy  was  scrip- 
tural and  primitive,  that  he  expresses  a  doubt  whether  "any 
such  should  be  found !" 

The  Episcopacy  which  Calvin  here  recommends,  could 
not  be  a  Presbyterian  or  Parochial  Episcopacy,  in  which  all 
the  ministers  are  on  a  level,  and  in  which  every  pastor  or 
bishop  has  the  charge  of  only  one  congregation.  The  dis- 
tinction of  superior  and  inferior  orders  of  ministers  is  always 
connected  with  a  hierarchy,  and  by  this  term  Calvin  distin- 
guishes the  Episcopacy  he  recommends.  He  is  defending 
himself  from  the  charge  of  being  guilty  of  schism  in  depart- 
ing from  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  And  he 
does  not  justify  this  departure  on  the  ground  that  the  bishops 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  were  diocesan,  or  exercised  authority 
over  churches  consisting  of  several  congregations  with  their 
ministers,  but  that  these  bishops  were  not  subject  to  Christ. 
"  If  they  would  give  us  such  an  hierarchy,  in  which  the 
bishops  should  so  excel,  as  not  to  refuse  to  be  subject  to  Christ, ^^ 
then  he  denounces  an  anathema  against  all  who  should  reject 
it.  The  very  expression,  "  in  qua  sic  episcopi  emineant,''^ 
"  in  which  the  bishops  should  so  excel,''''  denotes  that  the 
bishops  meant  by  Calvin,  exercised  superior  powers  over  their 
brethren,  and,  of  course,  were  not  Presbyterian  bishops. 
They  were  so  to  excel,  so  to  be  superior,  as  not  to  refuse 
subjection  to  Christ.  Calvin  also  refers  with  approbation  to 
the  state  of  the  church  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  when  the 
bishops  certainly  were  diocesan,  exercised  power  over  clergy 
and  congregations.      Cyprian  had  several  presbyters  subject 

by  Beza,  entitled,  Joannis  Calvini  tractatus  theologici  omnes,  in  iinum 
volumen  certis  classibus  congest!,  &c.  The  passage  cited  above  is  at  the 
69th  page  of  the  volume. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  93 

to  him,  and  Cornelius,  his  contemporary.  Bishop  of  Rome, 
had  under  him  in  the  diocese  of  Rome,  forty-six  presb5i;ers 
and  seven  deacons.  It  is  incredible,  also,  that  Episcopacy 
should  not  have  been  diocesan  in  the  time  of  Cyprian ;  and 
yet  thatEusEBius,  who  wrote  his  ecclesiastical  history  within 
less  than  half  a  century  after  the  death  of  Cyprian,  should 
trace  the  succession  of  diocesan  bishops  to  the  Apostles. 

Surely  Presbyterian  writers  who  constantly  and  invariably 
apply  the  term  hierarchy,  as  designating  church  govern- 
ment, solely  to  diocesan  Episcopacy,  in  which  there  is  "  rank 
and  subordination "  of  ministers,  cannot  consistently  plead 
that  Calvin,  by  this  term,  meant  Presbyterian  or  Parochial 
Episcopacy,  in  which  there  is  a  perfect  parity  of  ministers.  I 
believe  no  instance  can  be  produced  where  the  term  is  ap- 
plied to  any  sacred  government  or  community  in  which  there 
is  not  distinction  and  subordination  of  sacred  orders. 

The  divines  of  the  French  Protestant  Church  understood 
Calvin  as  applying  this  term,  hierarchy ,  to  the  English  Epis- 
copacy. This  very  passage  is  so  understood  and  cited  by  M. 
De  L'Angle,  minister  of  the  French  Church  at  Charenton, 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Bishop  of  London — "  Since  the 
Church  of  England  is  a  true  church  of  our  Lord ;  since  her 
worship  and  doctrines  are  pure,  and  have  nothing  in  them 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God  ;  and  since  that  when  the  Refor- 
mation was  there  received,  it  was  received  together  with 
Episcopacy,  and  with  the  establishment  of  the  Liturgy  and 
Ceremonies,  which  are  there  in  use  at  this  day ;  it  is,  with- 
out doubt,  the  duty  of  all  the  reformed  in  your  realm,  to  keep 
themselves  inseparably  united  to  that  church. — This  was  so 
much  the  opinion  of  our  great  and  excellent  Calvin,  that  in 
his  treatise  of  the  necessity  of  the  Reformation,  he  makes  no  dif- 
ficulty to  say,  that  if  there  should  be  any  so  unreasonable  as 
to  refuse  the  communion  of  a  church  that  was  pure  in  its 
worship  and  doctrine,  and  not  to  submit  himself  with  respect 
to  its  government,  under  pretence  that  it  had  retained  an 
Episcopacy  qualified  as  yours  is;  there  would  be    no  cen- 


94  hobart's  apology 

sure  nor  rigour  of  discipline  that  ought  not  to  be  exercised 
upon  them."* 

Another  divine  of  the  French  church,  Mons.  Daille,  un- 
derstands Calvin  to  the  same  effect — "  Calvin  himself 
honoured  all  Bishops  that  were  not  subjects  of  the  Pope, 
&c.  such  as  were  the  Prelates  of  England,  Cranmer, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Hooper,  and  others. — We  con- 
fess that  the  foundation  of  their  charge  is  good  and  lawful, 
established  by  the  Apostles,  according  to  the  command  of 
Christ,  in  the  churches  which  they  founded. ""f 

Calvin  disclaims  that  equality  in  the  ministry  which  the 
Christian's  Magazine  maintains  is  the  "  law  of  God's  house." 
In  his  comment  on  the  text  in  Titus,  "  For  this  cause  left  I 
thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  mightest  ordain  elders  in  every  city," 
&c.  he  observes,  "  Hence  we  learn,  that  there  was  not  any 
equality  among  the  ministers  of  the  church,  but  that  one  was 
placed  over  the  rest  in  authority  and  counsel.''''  Calvin  here 
acknowledges  what  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  maintain, 
that  Titus  was  the  head  and  supreme  governor  of  the  church 
in  Crete. 

Calvin  indeed  did  not  pretend  that  the  Presbyterian  form 
of  government  which  he  established  at  Geneva  was  primi- 
tive. In  his  epistle  to  Cardinal  Sadolet,  he  says,  "  We  deny 
not  that  we  want  a  discipline  such  as  the  ancient  church 
had  ;  but  can  they  with  justice  accuse  us  of  having  over- 
thrown the  discipline  of  the  church,  who  are  the  only  men 
who  have  destroyed  it  from  the  foundation,  and  who,  when 
we  endeavoured  to  restore  the  same,  have  hitherto  opposed 
that  work .?  But  as  for  doctrine,  we  are  willing  to  be  tried 
by  the  ancient  church.'''''^ 

Beza,  the  colleague,  and  afterwards  the  successor  of  Cal- 

*  This  letter  is  annexed  to  Stillingfleet's  "  Unreasonableness  of  Sepa- 
ration."    It  was  wrritten  in  IGSO. 

t  See  Bingham's  French  Church's  Apology  for  Church  of  England, 
annexed  to  the  second  volume  of  his  works. 

X  Ad  Sadoletum  Responsio.     Joan.  Calv.  Trac.  p.  125. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  95 

vin,  in  his  treatise  against  Saravia,  observes,  "  If  there  are 
any  (which  you  shall  hardly  persuade  me  to  believe)  who 
reject  the  whole  order  of  Episcopacy^  God  forbid  that  any  man 
of  a  sound  mind  should  assent  to  the  madness  of  such  men  !" 
How  far  removed  then,  from  insanity  and  madness,  in  the 
judgment  of  Beza,  are  those  men  who  pronounce  the  whole 
order  of  Episcopacy  to  be  "  anti-Christian  and  unscriptural!" 
This  order  of  Episcopacy  was  the  Episcopacy  possessed  by 
the  Church  of  England :  for  in  the  same  treatise  he  styles  it 
a  "  singular  blessing,"  and  prays  that  it  may  be  "  perpetual " 
to  that  church. 

ViDELius,  a  distinguished  divine  of  the  Church  of  Geneva, 
afterwards  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Holland,  who  lived  in  the  seventeenth  century,  maintains  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  which  bear  such 
decided  testimony  to  Episcopacy,  and  asserts,  "  that  after 
the  death  of  Linus  and  Cletus,  Clemens  was  left  alone ;  and 
retained  the  name  of  Bishop,  both  because  he  then  survived 
all  those  who  had  been  assistants  of  the  Apostles ;  and  also 
for  that  the  distinction  of  the  names  of  bishop  and  presbyter 
was  even  then  in  force.^"^*  Videlius  here  testifies  to  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  for  he  makes  Clemens  to  be  alone  Bishop  of 
Rome  ;  and  surely  there  must  have  been  more  than  one  con- 
gregation of  Christians  in  that  city.  The  learned  Casaubon, 
a  divine  of  the  Church  of  Geneva,  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, observes  concerning  the  Church  of  England,  *'  that  no 
church  in  the  world  came  nearer  to  the  form  of  the  most 
flourishing  primitive  church  ;  having  observed  a  middle  way 
betwixt  those  churches  which  have  failed  either  by  excess 
or  defect."! 

Let  us  pass  on  to  the  testimony"  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  Holland  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  made  by  the  famous 
Synod  of  Dort.  At  this  Synod  several  of  the  bishops  of 
England  attended  by   invitation.     In   a   tract  w^hich  these 

*  Videl.  Exer.  8.  in  Ign.  epist.  ad  Marium,  cap.  iii. 
t  See  Durel's  View  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  p.  296. 


96  hobart's  apology 

bishops  published,  they  declare,  "  in  our  private  converse 
vrith  the  most  eminent  of  the  ministry,  we  found  many  more 
ready  to  deplore  than  to  defend  their  own  estate^  and  wished 
rather  than  hoped  to  be  made  like  the  flourishing  Church  of 
England."  And  when  the  British  delegates  "  asserted 
publicly  and  openly  in  the  Synod  the  divine  right  of  Episco- 
pacy^ and  appealed  therein  to  the  judgment  of  antiquity,'^^ 
the  members  of  the  Synod  replied,  ^'  that  they  had  a  great 
respect  and  value  for  the  good  order  and  discipline  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  wished  with  all  their  hearts  that 
the  same  order  were  observed  and  settled  there ;  that  they 
durst  not,  however,  hope  for  such  a  happiness  in  the  present 
state  of  affairs ;  but  hoped  that,  though  their  ability  bore  no 
proportion  to  their  will,  God  would  assist  them  by  his  grace 
and  favour,  and  that  they  would  do  all  in  their  power  towards 
it."*  A  famous  divine  of  the  same  church,  Le  Moyne, 
Professor  of  Divinity  at  Leyden,  in  Holland,  in  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  the  Bishop  of  London  in  1680,  not  only  defends 
Episcopacy,  but  expressly  asserts  that  it  had  always  subsisted 
throughout  the  universal  church ;  "  for  the  Episcopal  gov- 
ernment, what  is  there  in  it  that  is  dangerous .'"  &c.  &c. 
"  For  the  space  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  all  the  other  churches 
of  the  world  had  no  other  kind  of  government. '''''\ 

Equally  decisive  in  favour  of  Episcopacy  are  the  senti- 
ments of  divines  of  the  French  Protestant  Church.  They 
extol  Episcopacy,  and  expressly  plead  necessity  for  depar- 
ture from  it.  Mons.  Le  Moyne,  a  Protestant  minister  of 
Roan,  in  France,  in  a  letter  written  in  the  year  1661,  and 
addressed  to  an  English  clergyman,  thus  extols  Episcopacy 
— "  Truly  I  believe  not  that  it  is  possible  to  keep  either 
peace  or  order  in  your  church  without  preserving  the  Epis- 

*  This  fact  is  also  stated  by  Bishop  Hall,  who  attended  the  Synod, 
in  his  Divine  Right  of  Episcopacy ;  by  Collier,  in  his  Ecclesiastical 
History,  vol.  ii.  p.  717,  &c.  and  by  Brandt,  in  his  History  of  the  Refor- 
mation, vol.  iii.  p.  288. 

t  The  letter  is  published  at  length  in  the  appendix  to  Still ingfleet's 
"Unreasonableness  of  Separation." 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  97 

copal  dignity.  And  I  confess  that  I  conceive  not  by  what  spirit 
they  are  led  that  oppose  that  government^  and  cry  it  down  with 
such  violence.  For  I  defy  any  man,  whoever  he  be,  to 
show  me,  if  he  can,  any  other  order  more  suitable  with  rea- 
son, yea,  or  better  agreeing  with  holy  scripture.^  and  of  which 
God  hath  made  more  use  for  the  establishment  of  his  truthy 
and  the  amplification  of  his  kingdom.''^*  The  plea  of  neces- 
sity for  departing  from  Episcopacy  is  expressly  urged  by 
another  divine  of  the  French  Reformed  Church,  Mons.  Du 
Bosc — "  We  acknowledge  that  this  order  hath  signal  advan- 
tages ;  and  I  think  not  that  any  of  my  brethren  will  contra- 
dict me,  if  I  say  that  well-ordered  Episcopacy  hath  most 
important  and  considerable  utilities  which  cannot  be  found  in 
the  Presbyterian  discipline.  If  we  have  followed  the  last 
in  our  churches,  it  not  for  any  aversion  we  have  to  the  for- 
mer ;  it  is  not  because  we  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  contrary 
to  the  nature  of  the  gospel,  or  because  we  think  it  less  con- 
venient for  the  good  of  the  church,  or  less  worthy  of  the 
condition  of  the  true  flocks  of  our  Lord ;  but  because  it  is 
necessity  hath  obliged  us  to  it ;  because  Reformation  having 
been  begun  in  this  kingdom  by  the  people  and  by  inferior 
churchmen,  the  places  of  Bishops  remained  filled  with  men  \\ 
of  a  contrary  religion,  so  that  we  are  constrained  to  content  ' ' 
ourselves  with  ministers  and  elders  as  well  as  we  could," 
&c.|  The  testimony  of  Daille  and  L'Angle,  ministers  of 
the  same  church,  has  been  already  adduced,  and  is  well 
worthy  of  attention. 

Let  us  pass  on  from  the  Calvinistic  to  the  Lutheran 
churches.  The  Lutheran  churches  of  Sweden  and  Denmark 
have  preserved  the  Episcopal  succession. J   And  even  those 

*  The  letter  is  published  at  length  in  Durel's  "View  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  Worship  of  the  Reformed  Churches." 

t  The  letter  is  published  in  Durel's  "  View,"  &c. 

X  In  Sweden  and  Denmark,  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  were  com- 
pelled to  submit  to  the  Reformation ;  their  temporal  power  was  abolished ; 
and  they  retained  only  the  spiritual  part  of  the  Episcopal  office. 

9 

^U^  ^.z.^-   ^u  yW  V?<  ^^  ^^- 


98  hobart's  apology 

Lutheran  churches  of  Germany  who  could  not  preserve  the 
succession  of  Bishops,  entertained  so  great  a  respect  for  Epis- 
copacy, and  for  its  ancient  and  primitive  claims,  and  were 
also  so  impressed  with  its  utility ,  that  they  adopted  and  still 
maintain  the  forms  of  Episcopacy  ;  having  distinction  of  rank 
in  the  ministry,  and  placing  over  the  clergy  superintendents, 
to  exercise  the  general  powers  of  superintendence  and  gov- 
ernment. 

Now  I  may  confidently  appeal  to  any  candid  person — If 
Episcopacy  were  a  novel  institution  ;  if  it  had  been  unknown 
to  the  apostolic  and  primitive  church ;  if  it  had  sprung  from 
that  accursed  ambition,  and  desire  of  "  lording  it  over  God's 
heritage,"  which  nourished  and  advanced  to  full  stature  the 
"  man  of  sin  ;"  if  Episcopacy  were,  as  you  maintain,  "  un- 
scriptural  and  anti-Christian,"  would  the  Reformed  churches 
have  spoken  thus  respectfully  of  it  ?  Would  some  of  the 
Lutheran  churches,  who  were  unable  to  obtain  the  Epis- 
copal succession,  have  yet  preserved,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
forms  of  Episcopacy  ?  Would  the  Calvinistic  reformers 
and  divines  have  commended  "  a  well-ordered  Episcopacy,'*^ 
such  an  Episcopacy  as  the  Church  of  England  possessed,  as 
both  "  suitable  with  reason,  and  agreeing  with  holy  scrip- 
ture ?"  Would  they  have  pleaded  that  "  necessity  obliged 
them  to  depart  from  it ;"  that  "  as  the  Reformation  was 
begun  b}^  the  people  and  inferior  churches,  the  places  of  the 
Bishops  remained  filled  by  those  of  a  contrary  religion  ?" 
Would  they  have  lamented  that  "  the  state  of  aflfairs  did  not 
permit  them  to  hope  for  obtaining  it,"  and  have  prayed  that 
"  God  would  assist  them  by  his  grace  and  favour,  while  they 
did  all  in  their  power  to  obtain  it  ?"  Would  the  great  re- 
former, Calvin,  have  expressed  his  approbation  of  it,  and 
pronounced  an  awful  anathema  on  all  those  who  should 
reject  it?  Could  these  illustrious  Reformers  and  divines 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  constitution  of  the  primitive 
church — they  who  by  their  talents  and  learning  felled  the 
deep-rooted  and  towering  pretensions  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  ? 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  99 

Could  they  who  beheld  in  the  Bishops  who  surrounded  them 
the  obsequious  flatterers  and  tools  of  the  papal  church,  have 
had  any  inducement  to  flatter  this  order  as  "  under  any  form," 
primitive  and  apostolic  ?  Could  they,  who  boldly  defied  the 
papal  thunder  that  rolled  over  them,  have  wanted  the  courage 
and  the  zeal  to  renounce  and  oppose  the  order  of  Bishops, 
if,  with  the  Presbyterians  of  later  ages,  they  had  believed 
this  order,  "  under  whatever  form  or  pretext  adopted,  was 
unscriptural  and  anti-Christian  ?"  Ah  !  sir,  beware  how  you 
grossly  libel  the  talents,  learning,  piety  and  zeal  of  these 
"  heroes  of  the  truth,  who  rescued  millions  from  the  man  of 
sin,  Hghted  up  the  lamp  of  pure  religion,  and  left  it  burning 
with  a  pure  and  steady  light  to  the  generation  following."* 
No,  their  testimony  in  favour  of  Episcopacy  can  only  be  ac- 
counted for,  consistently  with  an  acknowledgment  of  their 
learning  and  their  piety,  on  the  principle  laid  down  by  Daille, 
that  ''  the  foundation  of  the  charge  of  Bishops  is  good  and 
lawful,  established  by  the  Apostles,  according  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ,  in  the  churches  which  they  founded."! 

Here  then  me  thinks  the  dispute  between  us  should  end. 
Here  then  Episcopacy  may  take  her  stand,  and  convict  of 
gross  departure  from  the  originalj  principles  of  the  Reformed 
churches,  and  expose  to  the  anathema  of  Calvin,  all  who 
shall  refuse  to  "  reverence  her,  and  submit  themselves  to 
her  with  the  utmost  obedience. "§  In  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject it  is  of  no  importance  whether  Episcopacy,  as  the 
divinely  instituted  method  of  conveying  the  ministerial 
authority  be  unalterable,  or  whether  it  be  only  an  ancient  and 
primitive  practice,  instituted  for  the  preservation  of  peace 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  96. 

t  Daille  here  means  such  Bishops  as  the  Church  of  England  possessed. 
See  p.  93,  94. 

X  I  say  original ;  for  it  is  certain  they  did  not  all  continue  to  maintain 
those  sentiments  concerning  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England 
which  they  at  first  expressed.  / .,    ..  >  ' 

§  See  Calvin's  Declarations,  p.  91 .  .  /    ,   , 


100  hobart's  apology 

and  unity  in  the  church.  Whatever  be  the  authority  for  it, 
we  find  the  universal  church  in  possession  of  it  at  the  Refor- 
mation. We  find  by  far  the  greater  proportion  of  the  Re- 
formed churches  preserving  Episcopacy  (purified  from  Papal 
corruptions)  either  in  substance  or  in  form*  We  find  those 
reformers  who  renounced  it  acknowledging  that  it  was  an 
ancient  and  primitive  institution ;  and  lamenting  the  unfortu- 
nate circumstances  which  compelled  them  to  depart  from  it. 
They  pleaded  that  they  could  not  get,  as  Calvin  expresses 
it,  "  such  an  hierarchy  in  which  the  Bishops  did  not  refuse 
to  be  subject  to  Christ." 

How  then  should  a  considerate  non-Episcopalian  argue .'' 
"  There  can  surely  be  nothing  '  anti-Christian  or  unscriptu- 
ral'  in  Episcopacy,  or  those  'faithful  ministers,  who  went 
away  to  their  Father's  house,  under  the  strong  consolations 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  anticipated  heaven  in-  their  hearts, 
and  its  hallelujahs  on  their  lips,'  "f  would  not  have  revered 
it  as  a  primitive  and  ancient  institution,  would  not  have 
lamented  their  want  of  it,  would  not  have  denounced  an 
anathema  against  all  who  should  wilfully  reject  it.  A  well- 
ordered  Episcopacy,  free  from  Papal  corruptions,  now  sub- 
sists, and  is  within  my  embrace.  The  plea  of  necessity 
forsakes  me.  Bj^  embracing  Episcopacy,  I  shall  at  any  rate 
be  on  the  safe  side.  Agreeably  to  the  concessions  of  all 
Christians,  I  shall  then  enjoy  the  true  ministry  and  ordi- 

*  Presbyterians  remain  as  they  were  at  first,  a  comparatively  sma// sec? 
among  Christians.  The  Greek  and  Latin  churches  are  Episcopal.  So 
also  are  the  Lutheran  churches  of  Sweden  and  Denmark;  the  Church 
of  the  United  Brethren,  or  Moravians ;  some  Protestant  churches  in 
Bohemia;  and  the  churches  of  England  and  Ireland;  the  venerable 
remains  of  the  ancient  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland;  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  country.  The  Lutheran  churches  of  Germany, 
though  destitute  of  the  Episcopal  successio7i,  are  yet  Episcopal  in  their 
form  of  government.  The  Presbyterians  consist  of  only  a  few  churches 
on  the  Continent,  some  of  the  dissenting  churches  in  England  and  Ire- 
land, the  established  Church  of  Scotland,  and  the  Seceding  churches, 
and  the  Presbyterian  churches  in  this  country. 

t  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  96. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  101 

nances  of  Christ's  Church.  1  shall  submit  to  an  apostolic 
and  primitive  institution,  and  thus  contribute  to  heal  the 
divisions  that  corrupt  the  truth,  and  cause  the  enemies  of 
Zion  to  laugh  her  to  scorn.  I  shall  promote  the  "  peace  of 
Jerusalem,"  and  thus  contribute  to  make  her  a  ^'praise 
throughout  the  earth."  Yes,  sir,  what  reply  v^^ould  you 
make  to  a  considerate  non-Episcopalian  who  should  thus 
address  you  }  You  could  not  say  that  Episcopacy  was 
"  unscriptural  and  anti-Christian ;"  for  then  he  would  urge 
against  you  the  concessions  of  all  the  Reformed  churches  at 
the  outset  of  the  Reformation.  He  would  urge  against  you 
the  anathema  of  Calvin^  that  illustrious  man  who  is  consider- 
ed as  the  founder  of  your  churches ;  who,  according  to  Mr. 
M'L.  "  equalled  his  contemporaries  in  piety,  accuracy, 
knowledge,  and  faithfulness,  and  surpassed  them  in  the  gran- 
deur of  his  conceptions."*  Nay,  sir,  he  would  urge  against 
you  your  own  confession.  For  you  say,  "  an  Episcopal 
Church  we  do  know,  in  which  there  are  hundreds  of  minis- 
ters and  thousands  of  their  people  who  are  '  valiant  for  the 
truth,'  who  exemplify  in  their  own  persons  the  loveliness  of 
the  Christian  character,"  &c.  &c.|  Now,  this  church 
which  you  thus  extol,  and  which  is  the  Calvinistic  part  of 
the  Church  of  England,  maintains  and  submits  to  that  very 
Episcopacy  which  you  are  asserting  is  "unscriptural  and 
anti-Christian." 

Nor  could  you  urge  on  the  non-Episcopalian  the  duty  of 
remaining  separate  from  the  Episcopal  Church,  by  the  plea 
that  she  imposes,  as  terms  of  communion,  doctrines  sinful 
and  contrary  to  scripture.  This  indeed,  is  the  plea  by  which 
Protestants  justify  their  separation  from  the  corrupt  Church 
of  Rome,  and  refute  all  the  arguments  in  favour  of  commu- 
nion with  it.  But  this  assertion  j^ou  dare  not  make.  The 
testimonies    of  the    Reformed  churches   in  favour   of   the 

*  "  Reformation  Principles,"  a  book  drawn  up  by  Mr.  M'L.  and  pub- 
lished as  the  standard  of  doctrine  of  his  church,  p.  58. 
t  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  103. 
9* 


102  hobart's  apology 

Church  of  England  would  rise  in  judgment  against  you.  You 
have  yourself  commended,  in  the  highest  terms,  an  "  Episco- 
pal Church,"  which  glories  in  the  same  articles  of  faith j  the 
same  Episcopacy^  the  same  worship^  the  same  rites  and  cere- 
monies which  the  Episcopal  Church  2:)0ssesses  in  this  coun- 
try. Nay,  if  there  is  any  difference,  it  is  in  favour  of  the 
latter.  For  Episcopacy  is  here  divested  of  those  adventi- 
tious circumstances  of  temporal  power  and  grandeur  which, 
in  the  opinion  of  some  of  its  friends,  have  not  always  ope- 
rated to  its  benefit. 

By  what  other  argument  would  3'ou  answer  the  plea  of 
the  non-Episcopalian,  that  it  is  safest  to  join  the  Episcopal 
Church,  in  which,  confessedly,  there  are  valid  ministrations 
and  ordinances  .''  Would  you  urge  that  it  would  be  sinful  in 
him  to  join  that  church  because,  in  your  judgment,  its  mem- 
bers do  not  exhibit  the  "  power  of  godliness,"  and  its  min- 
isters are  not  evangelical  preachers }  Admitting  your  asser- 
tion, which  I  contend  is  erroneous,  to  be  well  founded  ;  still, 
none  will  deny  that  the  articles  and  prayers  of  the  church 
are  sound  and  evangelical.  The  defects  of  its  members,  and 
the  want  of  good  preaching,  therefore,  cannot  be  admitted  as 
conclusive  arguments  against  union  with  a  church  where 
there  is  a  certainty  of  a  valid  ministry  and  ordinances.  The 
plea  of  greater  edification^  of  purer  administrations y  is  the 
ostensible  plea  of  almost  every  schism  that  has  rent  the 
church.  The  admission  of  it  would  excite  and  sanction  end- 
less divisions,  and  a  spirit  of  disorder,  enthusiasm  and  fanati- 
cism destructive  to  sober  truth,  to  sound  piety,  to  the  peace 
and  order  of  Zion.  The  admission  of  this  plea  would  exalt 
preaching  above  public  worship,  and  those  other  ordinances 
which  are  the  ^'  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace." 
Such  an  admission,  therefore,  would  be  contrary  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  for  she  justly  and  wisely 
declares,  '^  one  primary  design  of  public  ordinances  is  to  pay 
social  acts  of  homage  to  the  Most  High  God."  "  Sermons 
ought  not  to  be  so  long  as  to  interfere  with  the  more  impor- 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  103 

tant  duties  oi prayer  andy^mi^e."*  A  defect  must  he  funda- 
mental; terms  of  communion  must  be  sinful,  absolutely  con- 
trary to  the  divine  word,  and  incompatible  with  the  para- 
mount duty  of  obeying  God  rather  than  man,|  before  a 
Christian  will  be  justifiable  or  safe  in  renouncing  a  church 
where,  by  the  concessions  of  all,  there  is  a  certainty  of  a  valid 
ministry  and  ordinances,  and  in  joining  churches,  in  which, 
on  the  subject  of  "  these  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant," 
there  is,  to  say  the  least,  in  the  estimation  of  many,  consider- 
able doubt. 

Admirable  is  the  reasoning  by  which  Calvin  proves  that 
the  plea  of  purer  administrations  and  greater  edification  will 
not  justify  separation  from  a  church  in  whose  doctrines  or 
ministrations  there  is  nothing  fundamentally  sinful.  "  There 
may  some  faultiness  creep  into  the  church,  in  the  administra- 
tion either  of  doctrine  or  of  the  sacraments,  which  ought  not 
to  estrange  us  from  the  communion  of  it."  J  "  Among  the 
Corinthians  not  only  a  few  had  gone  out  of  the  way,  but  the 
infection  had  in  a  manner  seized  the  whole  body :  there  was 
not  only  one  kind  of  sin,  but  many :  neither  were  they  light 
offences,  but  certain  horrible  outrageous  doings  ;  it  was  not 
only  corruption  of  manners ,  but  also  of  doctrine.  What  in 
this  case,  saith  the  holy  Apostle,  the  instrument  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  whose  testimony  the  church  standeth  or  falleth  ? 
Doth  he  require  a  division  from  them  ?  Doth  he  banish  them 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ?  Doth  he  strike  them  by  the 
extremest  thunderbolt  of  his  curse  ?  He  not  only  doeth  none 
of  these  things,  but  he  both  acknowledgeth  and  proclaimeth  it 
a  church  of  Christ  and  fellowship  of  saints.''"'^ 

Calvin  refutes  the  plea  for  schism  and  for  refusing  to 
commune  with  a  true  church,  because  some  of  its  members 
are  corrupt  in  their  lives  and  manners.     "It  is  one  thing  to 

*  Directory  for  Worship,  Presbyterian  Church,  chap.  vi.  4. 

t  On  this  ground  is  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome  justified. 

X  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  i.  sect  12. 

§  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  i.  sect.  14. 


,  104  hobart's  apology 

flee  the  company  of  evil  men,  and  another  thing  for  hatred 
of  them  to  forsake  the  communion  of  the  church.  But 
whereas  they  think  it  sacrilege  to  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's 
bread  with  them,  they  are  therein  much  more  rigorous  than 
Paul  is.  For  where  he  exhorts  us  to  a  holy  and  pure  par- 
taking, he  requireth  not  that  one  should  examine  another^  or 
every  man  the  whole  churchy  but  that  they  should  each  one 
prove  himself.  1  Cor.  xi.  18.  If  it  were  unlawful  to  commu- 
nicate with  an  unworthy  man,  then  truly  Paul  would  bid  us 
to  look  circumspectly,  whether  there  were  any  in  the  multi- 
tude by  whose  uncleanness  we  might  be  defiled.  Now, 
when  he  requireth  only  of  every  man  the  proof  of  himself, 
he  showeth  that  it  does  not  in  the  least  injure  us  if  any 
unworthy  persons  thrust  themselves  in  among  us^* 

Calvin,  as  a  further  proof  that  we  ought  not  to  separate 
from  any  church  whose  doctrines  are  sound  and  valid, 
because  its  members  are  corrupt,  instances  the  corrupt  state 
of  the  Jewish  church  during  the  times  of  the  Prophets. 
"  Religion  was  partlj^  despised^  partly  defiled.  In  their  man- 
Tiers  are  commonly  reported  thefts,  extortions,  breaches  of 
faith,  murders  and  hke  mischiefs.  But  therefore  the  Pro- 
phets did  neither  erect  to  themselves  new  churches,  nor  build  up 
new  altars  on  which  they  might  have  several  sacrifices ;  but 
of  whatsoever  manner  of  men  they  were,  they  considered  that 
God  had  left  his  word  with  them,  and  ordained  ceremonies 
whereby  he  was  there  worshipped :  in  the  midst  of  the  assem- 
bly of  the  wicked  they  held  up  pure  hands  unto  him.  Truly 
if  they  had  thought  that  they  did  gather  any  infection  there- 
by, they  would  rather  have  died  a  hundred  times  than  have 
suffered  themselves  to  be  drawn  thereunto.  Therefore 
nothing  held  them  from  departing,  but  desire  to  the  keeping 
of  unity.  But  if  the  Prophets  thought  it  against  conscience 
to  estrange  themselves  from  the  church  for  many  and  great 
wicked  doings,  not  of  one  or  two  men,  but  in  a  manner  of  the 
whole  people,  then  we  take  too  much  upon  us,  if  immediately 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  1.  sect.  15. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  105 

we  dare  to  depart  from  the  communion  of  that  church  where 
not  all  men's  manners  do  satisfy  our  judgment,  yea,  or  the 
Christian  profession."* 

Would  to  God  that  all  those  who  make  greater  edification 
the  plea  for  rending  the  peace  of  the  church,  would  hsten  to 
the  remonstrances  of  Calvin !  How  clearly  does  he  prove 
that  corruptions  in  doctrine,  unless  they  be  fundamental,  or 
defects  in  the  lives  of  the  ministers  or  members  of  a  church 
which  is  sound  in  the  essential  points  of  doctrine,  and  which 
possesses  a  valid  ministry  and  ordinances,  will  not  justify  sepa- 
ration !|  There  is,  then,  a  rule  by  which  the  plainest  Chris- 
tian may  be  regulated.  He  should  choose  that  church  which 
does  not  prescribe  terms  of  communion  fundamentally  sinful, 
and  which  even  her  opponents  acknowledge  possesses  a  valid 
ministry  and  ordinances. 

Sir,  a  non-Episcopalian  may  compel  you,  on  your  own 
principles,  to  admit  that  it  is  safest  and  best  to  "  rush  into  the 
arms  of  an  Episcopal  church,"  in  which  it  is  possible  to  be 
"  valiant  for  the  truth,"  and  to  "  exemplify  all  the  loveliness 
of  the  Christian  character ;"  in  which  he  will  be  sure  of  en- 
joying valid  ministrations ;  and  in  which  he  will  enjoy  that 
Episcopacy  which  is  the  centre  of  unity  in  the  church ;  which 
Calvin  once  commended  as  ancient  and  primitive  ;  and  the 
want  of  which  many  divines  of  the  Reformed  churches  de- 
plored. 

Your  friends  in  the  Church  of  England,  the  Wilberforces, 
the  Thorntons y  the  Grants ,  and  others,  will  doubtless  consider 
your  commendation  of  them  as  no  more  than  a  just  return  for 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  book  iv.  chap.  i.  sect.  18. 

t  What  judgment  do  you  think  Calvin  would  have  pronounced  on 
the  Secession  from  the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  principles  of  which  seces- 
sion are  still  maintained  by  you,  and  lead  you  and  others  to  remain 
separate  from  the  church  commonly  known  as  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  this  country  ?  What  judgment  would  he  have  pronounced  on  Mr.  M'L. 
and  his  religious  society,  commonly  distinguished  as  Covenanters,  who 
refuse  Church  fellowship  with  all  other  Christians,  and  confine  thejncre 
word  and  ordinances  to  their  own  sect,  which  is  scarcely  known  in  the 
Christian  world  ?  * 

.1:  d.U. 


106  hobart's  apology 

their  attention  to  you,  and  for  the  pecuniary  favours  which 
the  religious  society  to  which  you  belong  received  froin  them. 
These  commendations  may  induce  them  to  pass  over  other  parts 
of  your  review  which  bear  not  very  lightly  on  that  "  exter- 
nal order,"  and  that  venerable  church  to  which  it  is  their 
pride  to  adhere.  I  shall  be  the  last  man  to  complain  of  your 
commendation  of  them,  even  though  it  is  accompanied  by 
the  unjust,  unfounded,  and  cruel  aspersion,  that  they  are 
"  hated,  reviled,  persecuted  "  by  such  ^'  high  Churchmen  as 
Mr.  H.  and  his  friends."*  No,  Sir,  Mr.  H.  and  his  friends 
detest  the  spirit  and  the  conduct  which  you  indirectly  ascribe 
to  them.  While  they  respect  the  right  of  other  religious  de- 
nominations to  profess  and  maintain  their  principles.  Church- 
men trust  that  there  is  not  a  system  of  denunciation  and  per- 
secution organized  to  deter  them  from  the  exercise  of  the 
same  right.  They  revere,  they  esteem,  they  love  the  Chris- 
tian spirit,  the  "  power  of  godliness,"  by  whomsoever  mani- 
fested. And  you  ought  to  know  that  Daubeny,  whom  you 
denounce  as  among  these  persecuting  Churchmen,  in  all  his 
writings,  speaks  in  the  most  exalted  terms  of  Wilberforcey 
and  with  the  utmost  moderation  and  mildness  opposes  what 
he  deems  his  errors.  "  High  Churchmen  in  England  hate, 
revile,  persecute"  the  Calvinistic  members  of  that  church ! 
My  impression  is  directly  the  reverse.  It  is  well  known  that 
these  people,  whom  you  so  much  extol,  "  hate,  revile,  perse- 
cute," all  ministers  of  the  church  who  will  not  preach  the 
peculiarities  of  Calvinism^  the  doctrines  of  unconditional  elec- 
tionj  irresistible  grace^  and  final  perseverance ;  denouncing 
those  who  reject  these  doctrines  as  not  being  '^  gospel  preach- 
ers," as  strangers  to  "  the  power  of  godliness,"  and  resting 
merely  in  its  "form."  Sir  Richard  Hill,  the  leader  of  the 
Calvinistic  band  in  the  Church  of  England,  in  his  criticisms 
on  Daubeny's  Guide  to  the  Church,  remarks,  that  "  few  will 
presume  to  question  the  doctrine  of  particular  election"  (in 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  held  by  Calvinists) — "  but  they  who 
•  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  103,  &c. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER  107 

are  strangers  to  the  power  of  sin  in  themselves^  or  to  the  riches 
of  grace  in  God  V  What  is  this  if  it  is  not  "  reviling 
and  persecuting  ?"  And  what  return  does  Daubeny  give  to 
this  harsh  treatment  ?  "  As  a  pious  and  exemplary  Christian, 
I  look  up  to  you,  Sir,  with  respect ;  I  could  almost  add,  with 
veneration;  for  I  cannot  but  venerate  a  man  who,  in  the 
midst  of  great  worldly  consideration,  attends  to  the  first  and 
most  important  duties  of  life."*'  Does  this  look  like  hating, 
reviling,  persecuting  ?  It  pains  me  to  find  you  involving,  in 
such  general  and  unjust  charges,  individuals  who  have  the 
misfortune  to  incur  your  displeasure  for  asserting  the  claims 
of  Episcopacy. 

Gratified  with  your  strong  commendations  of  "an  Episco- 
pal Church,"  I  shall  not  inquire  how  you  will  reconcile  these 
commendations  with  the  standards  of  your  church,  which 
pronounce  Episcopacy  to  be  "  unscriptural  and  anti-Chris- 
tian." It  is  not  my  business  to  inquire  how  you  will  answer 
the  charge  of  forsaking  the  principles  of  the  Seceders  in  Scot- 
land, from  whom  your  religious  society  is  descended,  and 
with  whom  you  yet  preserve  some  kind  of  ecclesiastical  in- 
intercourse.  Hatred  to  prelacy ^  to  the  "  hierarchy  in  its 
various  modifications,"  first  vented  in  the  "  solemn  league 
and  covenant,"  has  been  cherished  and  displayed  in  the  va- 
rious religious  "testimonies,"  which  the  Seceders  in  Scot- 
land, and  the  corresponding  sects  in  this  country,  have  set 
forth.  Yet  in  the  face  of  those  solemn  testimonies  you  extol, 
in  the  warmest  language,  "  an  Episcopal  Church,"  which 
submits  to  a  prelacy  ;  Ministers  who  compose  a  part  of  the 
hierarchy^  and  derive  their  commission  from  usurping  Bi- 
shops ;  and  Laymen  who  cherish  this  "hierarchical"  church, 
as  the  bulwark  of  Christendom  and  Christianity.  I  sincerely 
wish  you  may  run  no  risque  of  being  accused  of  "  trimming 
on  the  points  of  faith  and  duty  !" 

*  Daubeny's  Appendix  to  his  Guide.    Introductory  letter. 


108  hobart's  apology 


LETTER    X. 

Sir, 

One  important  title,  then,  by  which  Bishop's  hold 
their  powers,  is  prescription,  the  universal  and  immemorial 
usage  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  burden  of  proof  is  thus 
placed  upon  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy.  They  are  bound 
to  ascertain  precisely  and  determinately  the  period  when 
Presbyters  possessed  solely  the  ministerial  power,  and  when 
the  Bishops  usurped,  throughout  the  whole  Christian  Church, 
their  superior  prerogatives.  If  the  records  of  the  early  ages 
take  no  notice  of  an  event  so  memorable  ;  if,  while  they  re- 
cord minutely  the  heresies  and  the  schisms  which  distracted 
the  church,  they  take  no  notice  of  a  heresy  and  schism  in 
which  Bishops,  not  in  some  particular  province,  but  through- 
out the  world,  usurped  superior  powers  ;  if  the  early  records 
take  no  notice  of  a  fact  which,  shaking  the  church  to  its  foun- 
dations, must  have  been  of  the  most  important  and  public 
notoriety;  the  conclusion  is  certain  and  irresistible,  that  no 
such  usurpation  took  place  ;  but  that  the  Bishops  hold  their 
powers  by  the  same  tenure  which  supports  Presbyters  in 
theirs,  the  institution  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.* 

*  It  has  been  asserted,  that  the  Waldenses,  who  separated  in  the 
twelfth  century  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  were,  in  "  the  order  of  their 
church,"  and  in  their  form  of  government,  "  strictly  Presbyterian." 
They  were,  on  the  contrary,  strictly  Episcopal.  Mosheim,  who  cer- 
tainly was  not  very  partial  to  the  Episcopal  cause,  asserts,  "  The  govern- 
ment of  the  church  was  committed  by  the  Waldenses  to  Bishops,  Pres- 
byters, and  Deacons;  for  they  acknowledged  that  these  three  ecclesiastical 
orders  were  instituted  by  Christ  himself."*  Another  historian  f  asserts, 
that  "  the  Protestants  of  Bohemia,  who  were  apprehensive  that  ordina- 
tionSi  in  which  Presbyters  and  not  a  Bishoj)  should  create  another  Pres- 
byter, would  not  be  lawful — sent  deputies  to  the  remains  of  the  ancient 
Waldenses,  upon  the  confines  of  Moravia  and  Austria,  by  whose  Bishops 
these  deputies  were  consecrated  to  the  Episcopal  office,  which  they  have 
ever  since  transmitted  to  their  successors."    And  the  learned  Dr.  Allix, 

*  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  century  twelfth,  part  ii.  chap.  v. 
t  Commenius,  quoted  in  Dr.  Chandler's  Appeal  defended. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  109 

For  an  examination  of  this  important  question,  whether 
the  powers  of  Bishops  are  an  usurpation,  no  period  could 
have  been  more  favourable  than  the  Reformation.  Bishops 
were  part  of  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Against 
this  corrupt  church  the  indignant  zeal  of  the  Reformers  was 
roused.  They  wanted  not  motives,  and  surely  they  wanted 
not  the  talents  and  learning  to  test  the  pretensions  of  the 
Bishops,  to  unmask  these  usurpers,  if  such  they  were,  and  to 
consign  them  to  that  merited  execration  with  which  they  re- 
garded the  corrupt  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  On 
examining  the  sentiments  of  the  Reformers,  we  find,  to  our 
astonishment,  that  instead  of  treating  a  primitive  Episcopacy y 
"  such  as  the  Church  of  England  possessed,"  as  an  usurpation^ 
they  regarded  it  with  approbation  ;  expressed  the  hope,  that 
"  the  Church  of  England  might  long  enjoy  it ;"  and  even  de- 
nounced an  anathema  against  all  who  should  reject  it. 

That  these  were  the  sentiments  of  Calvin  and  other  emi- 
nent divines  of  the  Reformed  churches  concerning  the  Epis- 
copacy of  the  Church  of  England^  sufficient  proof  has,  I  con- 
ceive, been  adduced  in  my  last  letter.  I  cannot  avoid,  how- 
ever, calling  your  attention  to  the  following  corroborating 
evidence,  that  Calvin  and  the  Reformed  divines  approved  of 
the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  would  have 
adopted  it,  had  circumstances  favoured  such  a  measure.  The 
diligent,  learned  and  accurate  historian,  Strype,  furnishes 
this  evidence.  It  maybe  proper  to  premise, that  the  follow- 
ing quotations  from  this  historian,  have  been  adduced  as 
decisive  evidence  of  the  preference  of  Calvin  and  other  Re- 
formed divines  to  the  English  Episcopac}-,  by  the  Rev. 
Augustus  Toplady,  in  his  "  Historic  Proof  of  the  Doctrinal 
Calvinism  of  the  Church  of  England."  Toplady,  let  it  be 
remembered,  was  a  rigid  Calvinist ;  a  warm  admirer  and 

in  his  "  Remarks  on  the  ancient  Churches  of  Piedmont,"  proves,  that 
though  the  Waldenses  opposed  the  corrupt  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  they  still  held  to  the  three  primitive  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests . 
and  Deacons. 

10 


110  hobart's  apology 

panegyrist  of  Calvin  ;  and  his  works  rank  high  in  the  estima- 
tion of  Calvinists.* 

Strype  and  Toplady  both  adduce  the  passage  in  which 
Calvin  denounces  an  anathema  against  all  who  should  reject 
a  primitive  hierarchy  as  a  proof  of  his  approbation  of  the 
Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England.  Toplady  observes, 
"  that  great  reformer  (Calvin)  wished  for  the  introduction  of 
Protestant  Episcopacy  into  the  Reformed  churches  ahroad.''^'\ 
And  then  he  quotes  the  following  passage  from  Strype — 
"  How  Calvin  stood  affected  in  the  said  point  of  Episcopacy, 
and  how  readily  and  gladly  he  and  other  heads  of  the  Reformed 
churches  would  have  received  it,  is  evident  enough  from  his 
writings  and  epistles.  In  his  book  of  the  necessity  of  reform- 
ing the  church,  he  hath  these  words :  "  Talein  nobis  hierar- 
chiam  exhibeantj^''  &c. — Let  them  give  us  such  an  hierarchy, 
&c.  J  Toplady  agrees  with  Strype  in  considering  the  above 
passage  as  a  proof  that  "  Calvin's  opinion  was  favourable  to 
the  English  Episcopacy. '^^^ 

Toplady  asserts,  that  "  Calvin  made  a  serious  motion  of 
uniting  Protestants  together  ;"||  and,  in  proof  of  his  assertion, 
quotes  again  from  Strype — "  They  (the  foreign  Protestants) 
took  such  great  joy  and  satisfaction  in  this  good  king  (Ed- 
ward VI.)  and  liis  establishment  of  religion,  that  Bullinger, 
Calvin,  and  others,  in  a  letter  to  him,  offered  to  make  him 
their  defender,  and  to  have  Bishops  in  their  churches,  as  there 
ivere  in  England;  with  a  tender  of  their  service  to  assist  and 

*  The  accuracy  and  fidelity  of  Strype  as  a  historian,  has  never,  I  be- 
lieve, been  impeached.  We  are  indebted  to  his  faithful  and  indefatigable 
industry  for  much  valuable  information  relative  to  the  Reformation,  in  his 
"  Annals,"  and  other  works,  particularly  his  "  Lives"  of  the  Archbi- 
shops Cranmer,  Parker,  and  others.  He  is  characterized  by  Toplady  as 
"  an  useful  and  laborious  collector,"*  and  as  an  "  excellent  historian  ;"t 
and  is  frequently  quoted  as  authority  by  him. 

t  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  153.  London  edition. 

f  Strype's  Life  of  Archbishop  Parker,  p.  69,  70. 

§  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  153.  ||  p.  151. 

*  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  17,  note.  f  p.  15. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  Ill 

unite  together."*  Of  this  scheme  of  Calvin  to  unite  Pro- 
testant churches  under  Bishops,  such  as  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land enjoyed,  Toplady  observes,  "  Nothing  could  be  more 
wisely  or  more  benevolently  planned  than  this  excellent  scheme. 
It  was,  however,  frustrated  ;  and  frustrated  by  whom  ?  By 
the  Papists  of  that  time,"  who,  "by  dint  of  collusive  manage- 
ment, disconcerted  a  measure  so  formidable  to  the  interests 
of  Rome."  For  "  they  verily  thought  that  all  the  heretics, 
as  they  called  them,  would  now  unite  among  themselves,  and 
become  one  body,  receiving  the  same  discipline  exercised  in 
England ;  which,  if  it  should  happen,  and  they  should  have 
heretical  Bishops  near  them  in  those  parts,  they  concluded 
that  Rome  and  her  clergy  loould  utterly  falL'^^'f  Toplady 
observes  on  this  statement,  '^  the  restless  intrigues  of  the 
emissaries  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  who,  under  various  charac- 
ters and  appearances,  went  about  sowing  division,  and  seek- 
ing to  unsettle  the  minds  of  the  people,  doubtless  contributed 
much  to  impede  and  dissipate  the  intended  salutary  union.'''' 
Thus  then  this  plan  of  "  embracing  into  one  church  all  the  friends 
of  the  Reformation  in  every  country,"  which  Mr.  M'Leod 
considers  as  an  evidence  of  the  "  capacious  mind"  of  Calvin, 
and  of  the  "  grandeur  of  his  conceptions, "J  contemplated 
their  "  receiving  the  same  discipline  exercised  in  England^'''^ 
their  "  having  Bishops  in  their  churches,  as  there  were  in 
England!"  Calvin  proposed  that  Episcopacy — ^yes,  such 
an  Episcopacy  as  the  Church  of  England  possessed,  should 
constitute  the  unity  of  the  church,  that  "  essential  principle 
of  Christ's  kingdomr"§ 

*  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  207. 

t  And  yet  Episcopalians  are  sometimes  sneeringly  impeached  with 
being  only  a  few  "  bowshots  off  from  the  territories  of  our  sovereign  lord 
the  Pope."  The  fact  is,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  always  regarded, 
with  the  most  lively  apprehensions,  the  Church  of  England,  from  the 
persuasion  that  from  her  being  so  nearly  conformed  to  the  primitive  and 
purest  age  of  the  church,  she  is  the  most  dangerous  enemy  to  papal  usur- 
pations and  corruptions. 

X  Reformation  principles,  p.  58.  §  p.  55. 


112  hobart's  apology 

TopLADY  adduces  from  Strype  "  another  very  remarkable 
proof,  both  of  Calvin's  regard  for  Episcopacy^  and  of  the 
manner  in  which  a  seeming  difference  arose  between  the  plan 
of  ecclesiastical  government  adopted  by  that  Reformer,  and 
the  plan  of  Episcopal  government  adopted  by  the  Church  of 
England.  Toplady  quotes  "  a  curious  paper,  in  Archbishop 
Abbot's  own  hand-writing,  found  among  Archbishop  Usher's 
manuscripts,  and  pubHshed  by  Strype  ;"  and  then  subjoins — 
"  So  wrote  that  most  respectable  prelate,  Archbishop  Abbot, 
whose  evidence  may  be  thus  summed  up — Calvin's  last  let- 
ter concerning  Episcopacy ^  sent  to  the  ruling  clergy  of  Eng- 
land, in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  was  craftily  intercepted  by 
Bonner  and  Gardiner  ;  who  (to  crush  Calvin's  scheme  for 
episcopising  the  foieign  Protestant  churches)  forged  a  surly, 
snappish  answer  to  Calvin,  in  the  names  of  the  divines  to 
whom  his  letter  had  been  addressed,  but  whose  hands  it  had 
never  reached.  Calvin,  beins;  disgusted  at  the  rudeness  with 
which  he  supposed  his  overture  had  been  received  here, 
dropt  all  thoughts  of  making  any  further  advances  on  the 
subject.  And  thus  had  not  two  Popish  extinguishers  put  out 
the  design,  Calvin  had  admitted  the  discipline  of  the  Church 
of  England^  with  as  much  zeal  and  heartiness  as  the  Church 
of  England  actually  adopted  Calvin's  doctrine."*  How  far 
the  Church  of  England  ''^  adopted  Calvin's  doctrine'^''  will  be 
best  ascertained  by  a  comparison  of  her  Articles  and  Liturgy 
with  his  Institutes ;  by  which  it  will  appear,  that  on  all  the 
distinctive  points  of  Calvinism,  there  is  the  most  marked  dif- 
ference between  the  language  of  the  Church  of  EnHand  in 
her  Articles  and  Liturgy,  and  the  Institutes  of  Calvin.  In 
the  above  passage,  however,  we  have  the  decided  opinion  of 
an  eminent  Calvinistic  historian  and  writer,  founded  on  the 
most  satisfactory  documents,  that  Calvin  was  attached  to 
the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  was  desirous 
to  introduce  it  into  all  the  Reformed  churches. 

*  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  153,  154,  note. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  113 

The  same  historian,  Toplady,  asserts — "  Nor  did  Calvin's 
learned  colleague  and  successor,  the  illustrious  Beza,  enter- 
tain a  less  respectful  idea  of  our  national  establishment."* 
In  proof  of  this,  Toplady  introduces  from  Strype  an  account 
of  a  letter  from  Beza,  in  answer  to  one  from  Archbishop 
Whitgift,  "  blaming  him  for  his  (supposed)  meddling  with 
the  church  and  state  of  England  without  any  lawful  commis- 
sion." In  his  defence  Beza  states  that  the  letter  of  the 
Archbishop  "  indeed  troubled  both  him  and  Sadeel  (another 
of  the  ministers  of  Geneva)  in  some  sort ;  as  being  greatly 
afraid,  lest  some  sinister  rumours  were  brought  to  him  (to 
the  Archbishop)  concerning  them  ;  or  lest  what  they  had 
written,  concerning  church  government,  properly  against  the 
anti-Christian  tyranny  (of  the  Romish  Church,)  as  neces- 
sity required^  might  be  taken  by  some  in  that  sense,  as  though 
they  ever  meant  to  compel  to  their  order  those  churches  that 
thought  otherwise.  That  such  arrogancy  was  far  from  them," 
&c.  &c.t  Toplady  further  remarks — "  As  to  Beza,  if  he 
werd  afterwards  so  far  wrought  upon,  by  dint  of  misrepre- 
sentation, as  to  countenance,  in  an}"  measure,  the  forwardness 
of  the  more  rigid  disciplinarians "  (the  opponents  of  the 
Church  of  England,)  ^'  it  ought,  in  justice,  to  be  imputed 
neither  to  any  levity  nor  duplicity  in  him  (for  he  was  equally 
incapable  of  both,)  but  to  the  wrong  informations  that  were 
sent  to  him,  by  which  a  foreigner  who  resided  at  so  great  a 
distance  from  England,  might,  easily  enough,  be  liable  to 
undue  impression. "J  Toplady  also  urges  the  testimony  of 
the  famous  Synod  of  Dort  in  favour  of  the  Episcopacy  of 
the  Church  of  England,  as  an  evidence,  "  that  the  affection 
of  the  foreign  Reformed  churches  to  a  Protestant  and  primi- 
tive Episcopacy,  did  not  expire  with  the  life  of  Calvin. "§ 

*  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  16. 

t  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  letter  of  Beza  to  Archbishop 
Whitgift,  containing  concessions  in  favour  of  the  Episcopacy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  was  written  several  years  after  some  of  his  works 
which  contained  different  sentiments. 

X  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  18.  §  p.  154. 

10* 


114  hobart's  apology 

After  thus  adducing  evidence  of  the  attachment  of  the 
foreign  Reformers  to  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, this  Calvinistic  writer  and  historian,  Toplady,  observes, 
"  Calvin,  Beza,  Zanchius,  Sadeel,  Bullinger  and  Gual- 
TER,  entertained  very  respectful  and  affectionate  sentiments, 
concerning  the  ritual^  decency  and  order ,  together  with  the 
Episcopal  regimen,  of  our  incomparable  church.  And 
to  the  approbation  of  those  most  learned  persons  might  be 
added  (if  need  required)  that  of  many  other  foreign  Calvinists, 
who  are  deservedly  numbered  among  the  first  ornaments  of 
that  country."* 

If  these  testimonies  of  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  Reformed 
divines  in  favour  of  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
cannot  be  urged  as  conclusive  evidence  that  these  Reformers 
advanced  it  to  the  rank  of  a  divine  institution,  they  at  least 
show  that  they  approved  of  it  as  an  ancient  and  primitive 
institution,  handed  down  from  the  apostolic  age  ;  that  im- 
perious circumstances  only  led  ihem  to  deviate  from  it,  and 
prevented  the  execution  of  a  plan  to  introduce  it  into  alf  the 
Reformed  churches.  Alas  !  that  a  plan  which  displayed 
"  the  grandeur  of  the  conceptions "  of  the  great  Reformer 
Calvin,  should  have  failed.  The  Protestant  churches, 
cemented  by  the  ancient^  primitwe  and  venerable  bond  of 
Episcopacy,  would  have  been  at  unity  among  themselves ; 
and  thus  have  set  at  defiance  the  insidious  arts  and  open  as- 
saults of  popery,  the  ravages  of  heresj^  and  schism,  and  the 
scoffs  of  infidelity.  "  Jerusalem  would  have  been  as  a  city  that 
is  at  unity  in  itself"  The  prayer  of  Jesus  for  his  followers 
would  have  been  answered — that  they  all  might  be  one. 

I  call  then  on  every  candid  non-Episcopalian  seriously  to 
weigh  the  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  of  these 
pious  and  holy  men,  who  "  lighted  up  the  lamp  of  pure  re- 
ligion." To  suppose  that,  if  they  had  viewed  Episcopacy  as 
an  usurpation,  any  "  human  regards  "  would  have  led  them 
not  only  to  disguise  their  sentiments,  but  to  speak  in  the 

*  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  19. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  115 

most  respectful  terms  of  it,  and  and  even  to  wish  its  univer- 
sal adoption  as  the  bond  of  unity  in  the  churchy  would  be  to 
fix  an  indelible  stigma  on  their  character ;  to  impeach  that 
exalted  integrity  and  firmness  which  it  is  our  glory  to  claim 
for  the  "heroes  of  the  Reformation."  To  suppose,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  they  were  incapable  of  examing  the  claims 
of  Episcopacy  J  would  be  an  impeachment  of  their  talents, 
their  learning  and  zeal.  The  inquisitive^  the  jealous,  the 
learned,  the  pious,  the  faithful  period  of  the  Reformation, 
applauded  and  sanctioned  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of 
England.  What  that  period  failed  to  discover  or  proclaim 
has  been  reserved  for  the  superior  jealousy,  learning,  piety 
and  faithfulness  of  a  later  age  !  A  primitive  Episcopacy, 
such  as  the  Church  of  England  possesses,  is  noiv  denounced 
as  an  usurpation,  as  "  anti-Christian,  and  unscriptural." 
"  Venerable  Calvin  !"  stay  thy  awful  anathema.  "  Illus- 
trious Beza  !"  I  hear  thee  pouring  forth  the  indignant  lan- 
guage— "  God  forbid  that  any  man  of  a  sound  mind  should 
assent  to  the  madness  of  such  men."* 

This  title  then  of  ancient  usage — a  title  acknowledged  by 
those  eminent  Reformers  who  were  led  by  imperious  circum- 
stances to  deviate  from  Episcopacy,  should  induce  every 
Christian,  when  it  is  in  his  power,  to  embrace  that  church 
which  enjoys  the  "  singular  blessing  "  of  a  primitive  Episco^ 
pacy,  reformed  from  Papal  corruptions.  Prudence  obviously 
dictates  this  choice.  Of  the  validity  of  Episcopal  ministra- 
tions there  never  has  been,  there  never  can  be  the  least  doubt : 
while  the  validity  of  non-Episcopal  ministrations,  whatever 
allowance  in  certain  cases  may  be  made  by  the  judgment  of 
charity,  remains  still,  to  say  the  least,  a  disputed  point. 

But  Episcopacy  claims  our  reception  by  a  still  higher  title. 
Episcopacy  rests  on  divine  authority.  It  is  the  institution 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

In  discussing  any  subject,  it  is  essential  to  the  discovery  of 
truth,  and  to  bringing  the  discussion  to  a  speedy  issue,  that 
*  See  page  95. 


»^lf       ^'C     //U-tS.^-,    /\jL4r-^J^-        />-VM^i 


116  hobart's  apology 

the  precise  point  in  dispute  should  be  clearly  ascertained, 
and  the  proposition  to  be  proved  plainly  and  definitively 
stated.  The  opponents  of  Episcopacy  have  often  connected 
with  it  points  that  are  not  essential  to  it ;  and  when  they 
have  demolished  these,  they  triumphantly  suppose  that  the 
cause  of  Episcopacy  is  subverted. 

The  essential  and  characteristic  principles  of  Episcopacy 
are — That  there  are  three  grades  of  ministers  instituted  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles ;  that  the  first  grade,  in  addition  to 
the  ministerial  powers,  possess  the  sole  power  of  ordination^ 
with  the  right  of  exercising  supreme  authority  over  the  con- 
gregations and  ministers  who  maj^  be  subject  to  them. 

From  this  statement  of  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy,  the 
following  conclusions  result. 

1.  It  is  immatenal  by  what  names  these  grades  of  the 
ministry  are  distinguished. 

The  question  concerns  merely  the  distinctive  powers 
which  they  possess ;  and  the  subordination  of  the  two  infe- 
rior grades  to  the  first.  Episcopalians  concede  that  the 
names  of  Bishops  Presbyter^  and  Deacon,  are,  in  scripture, 
interchangeably  applied  to  the  three  grades.  Still  it  is 
apparent,  from  the  different  jjowers  which  they  exercised,  or 
which  were  committed  to  them,  that  there  was  a  distinction 
of  authority,  and  a  subordination  among  them.  It  would  be 
fallacious  and  unfair  to  argue  from  a  community  of  names,  to 
a  community  of  all  ministerial  powers ;  or  to  ascertain  their 
appropriate  and  distinctive  powers  by  the  names  applied  to 
them.  The  term  Deacon,  signifying  a  minister,  may  be  very 
properly  applied  to  all  the  three  grades.  The  term  Presby- 
ter,  signifying  a  church  officer,  may  also  be  indiscriminately 
applied.  And  Bishop,  signifying  an  overseer,  may  be  applied 
to  a  Presbyter,  who  has  the  oversight  of  a  congregation,  as 
well  as  to  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  who  possess  the 
right  of  overseeing  ministers  and  congregations.  The  distinc- 
tion and  subordination  of  their  powers  is  a  matter  of  fact,  to 
be  ascertained  by  an  appeal  to  scripture,  illustrated  and  cor- 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  117 

roborated  by  the  universal  practice  and  testimony  of  the  pri- 
mitive church.  "  Mere  names  are  of  little  real  value."  *  "  It 
is  for  the  thi7ig  not  the  name,  we  should  contend,  "f  The 
three  grades  of  the  ministry  were  distinguished  at  first  by 
the  names  Apostles;  Presbyters,  or  Elders — called  also 
Bishops,  as  overseeing  a  particular  flock — and  Deacons.  And 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  the  term  Bishop  became 
appropriate  to  their  successors  in  the  ordinary  ecclesiastical 
powers  of  ordination  and  government ;  and  the  two  inferior 
grades  were  styled  Presbyters  or  Priests,  and  Deacons. 

Let  it  then  be  noted,  that  the  distinction  and  subordination 
of  the  offices  of  these  three  grades  of  the  ministry  is  to  be 
inferred,  not  from  their  names,  but  from  their  practices,  from 
the  powers  vested  in  them,  and  from  their  acts  of  jurisdiction. 
Desperate  indeed  must  be  the  cause  of  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy,  when  they  insist  that  the  grades  of  ministers 
now  distinguished  as  Bishops  and  Presbyters  possessed  origi- 
nally the  same  powers,  because  these  names  were  originally 
applied  to  the  same  order.  Who  would  think  of  inferring 
that  our  Saviour  was  no  more  than  an  Apostle  or  a  Bishop, 
because  these  names  are  applied  to  him  ^  J  Or,  who  would 
think  of  maintaining  that  the  Consuls  of  the  present  day  are 
the  same  with  those  of  the  Roman  Republic,  because  they 
are  distinguished  by  the  same  names .'' 

2.  Episcopalians  consider  also  as  merely  verbal  the  dis- 
pute whether  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  distinct  orders,  or 
different  grades  of  the  same  order. 

They  conceive  indeed  that  as  Presbyters  are  superior  in 
power  to  Deacons,  and  Bishops  to  Presbyters;  and  as  they 
are  advanced  to  these  superior  powers  by  ordination,  the 
Church  of  England  is  justified  in  declaring,§  that  there  are 
three  '^orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church."  But  still 
many  of  the  schoolmen,  and  some  few  divines  even  of  the 
Church  of  England,  are  of  opinion,  that  though  Bishops  are 
*  Mr.  M'Leod's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  30.  f  p.  18. 

X  Heb.  iii.  1-     1  Pet.  ii.  25.       §  Preface  to  Ordination  Service. 


118  hoeart's  apology 

superior  to  Presbyters  in  the  power  of  ordination,  they  are, 
nevertheless,  the  same  order,  as  having  the  same  pnesthood. 
It  would  be  absurd  to  conclude  from  hence,  that  these 
divines  believed  Bishops  are  on  an  equality  with  Presbyters. 
They  contend,  on  the  contrary,  that  Bishops  are  invested  by 
ordination  or  consecration,  with  that  power  of  ordaining 
others  which  Presbyters  have  not.  The  only  thing,  there- 
fore, essential  is,  that  Bishops  possess,  by  apostolic  institu- 
tion, certain  powers^  distinct  from  and  superior  to  the  ordinary 
powers  of  Presbj^ters.  This  proved,  the  question  in  regard 
to  the  distinction  or  community  of  order  becomes  a  mere  dis- 
pute about  words. 

Bishops  and  Presbyters,  with  regard  to  the  priesthood  com- 
mon to  both,  by  which  they  were  distinguished  from  Dea- 
cons and  from  the  people,  might  be  considered  as  the  same 
order.  Still,  in  regard  to  authority  and  jurisdiction,  dignity 
and  power,  a  Bishop  was  above  a  Presbyter.  To  contend 
that  there  were  not  three  grades  of  ministers  in  the  primitive 
church,  because  they  were  sometimes  included  in  the  two 
names,  of  Bishops  and  Deacons^  Presbyters  and  Deacons^ 
would  be  as  absurd  as  to  contend  that  there  were  not  the 
three  orders,  of  High  Priest,  Priests,  and  Levites,  among  the 
Jews,  because  the  Jewish  priesthood  is  sometimes  included 
in  the  two  terms.  Priests  and  Levites  ;  or  that  there  is  in  the 
present  day  only  one  order  of  ministers  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  because  the  three  orders,  are  often  denoted  by  the  sin- 
gle appellation  of  Ministers,  or  Priests,  or  Clergy.  Because 
Clemens  Romanus^  an  ancient  Father,  divides  the  clergy  into 
two  orders,  Bishops  and  Deacons,  it  is  contended  that  there 
were  in  his  day  only  two  orders  in  the  church.  As  well 
might  we  contend  that  there  was  no  High  Priest  superior  to 
Priests  and  Levites,  because  Clemens  divides  the  Jewish  min- 
istry into  Priests  and  Levites. 

3.  Nor  is  it  essential  to  the  peculiar  and  distinctive  func- 
tions of  a  Bishop,  that  he  should  always  actually  exercise 
power  over  ministers  and  congregations ;  but  it  is  essential 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  119 

that  he  should  possess  the  power,  though  it  be  not  called  into 
exercise. 

A  Bishop  may  sometimes  be  deprived  of  his  diocese^  of  his 
ministers  and  congregations,  by  the  civil  authority.  In  this 
situation  were  several  Bishops  in  England  and  Scotland, 
who  were  deprived  of  their  dioceses  at  the  Revolution  in 
1688.  But  a  Bishop  either  deprived  of,  or  relinquishing  his 
diocese,  no  more  loses  his  Episcopal  functions  than  a  Presby- 
ter ceases  to  be  a  Presbyter  when  he  gives  up  his  congrega- 
tion, and  remains  without  any  pastoral  charge.  In  the  early 
ages  of  Christianity,  a  Bishop  may  have  been  sometimes 
placed  in  a  city  or  village  where  there  was  but  one  congre- 
gation of  Christians.  Still  the  Bishop  possessed  the  power 
of  ordaining  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  and  of  exercising  au- 
thority over  them.  As  the  number  of  Christians  multiplied, 
the  new  congregations,  supplied  by  his  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons, remained  subject  to  him.  But  the  Bishop,  while  there 
was  but  one  congregation  in  his  diocese,  no  more  lost  his 
peculiar  and  superior  powers,  than  the  Bishop  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  or  New- York,  would  lose  his  Episcopal  func- 
tions, should  persecution  or  any  other  event  diminish  his 
diocese  to  one  single  congregation. 

It  is  the  possession  of  the  light  to  exercise  authority  over 
Presbyters  and  congregations,  and  not  the  actual  exercise  of 
this  right,  dependent  as  this  exercise  is  upon  circumstances, 
which  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  Episcopal  grade 
of  the  ministry.  Nor  does  this  bring  a  Bishop  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  to  a  levels  or  identify  him,  with  a  Congregational 
or  Presbyterian  Bishop^  who  oversees  only  one  congregation. 
This  latter  can  have  no  Presbyters,  possessing  the  powers  of 
the  ministry,  subject  to  him.  He  is  himself  the  only  person 
in  the  congregation  vested  with  the  power  of  preaching  the 
word,  and  administering  the  sacraments.  His  Elders  are 
merely  aids  to  him  in  discipline  ;  and  his  Deacons  are  officers 
who  have  the  care  of  the  poor  and  some  other  temporal  func- 
tions.   The  right  to  exercise  power  over  other  congregations 


120  hobart's  apology 

and  their  pastors,  is  no  part  of  his  office.  But  a  Bishop  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  possesses  the  right  to  exercise  authority 
over  Presbyters  and  Deacons^  who  have  the  ministry  of  the 
word  and  sacraments ;  and  also  over  the  congregations^  in 
which  these  Presbyters  and  Deacons  minister.  Pecuh'ar 
circumstances  may  sometimes  prevent  the  actual  exercise  of 
his  powers,  but  cannot  divest  him  of  them. 

4.  The  name  or  the  extent  of  the  Bishop's  charge^  or  his 
not  being  exclusively  fixed  to  any  particular  district^  does  not 
affect  his  distinctive  and  essential  powers. 

The  charge  of  a  Bishop  is  now  called  a  Diocese^  and  that 
of  a  Presbyter  a  Parish.  But  to  the  fourth  century  the 
common  name  of  an  Episcopal  diocese  was  itaQovula^  answer- 
ing nearly  to  the  English  word  parish.  This  signified  not 
the  places  or  habitations  near  a  church.,  but  a  city  and  the 
towns  and  villages  near  it.  These,  together  with  the  city, 
constituted  the  charge  of  a  Bishop,  his  naqoixia^  or  parish,  or, 
as  it  is  now  called,  his  diocese.  But  it. would  be  unfair  and 
absurd  to  argue  from  the  circumstance  of  the  Bishop's  charge 
being  originally  called  his  parish,  that  it  was,  what  that  name 
now  commonly  signifies,  a  single  congregation  or  pastoral 
care.  Arguments  drawn  from  sameness  of  names ,  to  prove 
sameness  of  powers,  of  persons,  or  of  things,  are  always  liable 
to  be  fallacious,  and  betray  the  weakness  of  the  cause  into 
the  service  of  which  they  are  pressed.  "  Names  are  of  little 
real  value."*  They  are  changeable  in  their  signification; 
and  in  different  places,  and  at  different  periods  are  variously 
applied.  The  extent  of  a  Bishop's  charge,  whether  confined 
to  a  single  congregation,  or  extending  over  several  congrega- 
tions, is  a  matter  of  fact,  to  be  determined  not  by  the  name 
given  to  the  charge,  but  by  other  circumstances.  The  word 
naqoiKia,  or  parish,  is  applied  by  Eusebius  to  a  Bishop^s 
charge,  in  the  fourth  century,  when  by  the  concessions  of  all 
the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  this   charge   included  several 

*  Mr.  M'Leod's  language  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  121 

congregations.  The  learned  Bingham,*  in  his  Origines  Ec- 
clesiasticcE^'f  observes,  "  The  reader  may  find  an  hundred 
passages  in  Eusebius  where  he  uses  the  word  itaqovMa^  (or 
parish^)  when  he  speaks  of  those  large  and  populous  cities 
(Rome,  Antioch,  and  Alexandria)  which  had  many  particular 
churches  in  them.  The  city  of  Alexandria,  in  the  time  (the 
fourth  century)  of  Alexander  and  Athanasius,  was  divided 
into  several  districts,  called  Laura,  in  every  one  of  which 
there  was  a  church,  with  a  Presbyter  fixed  upon  it :  and  yet 
all  these  were  but  one  nagoi^iicx,  as  Alexander  calls  it  in  his 
circular  Epistle  against  Arius."  Until  it  can  be  proved  that 
the  word  Ttagoixla,  in  the  primitive  church,  was  invariably  ap- 
plied only  to  a  single  congregation,  the  argument  drawn  from 
it  against  a  Bishop's  charge  extending  beyond  a  single  con- 
gregation, can  have  no  weight.  We  dismiss  the  name  of  the 
Bishop's  charge  as  of  no  consequence,  as  no  way  affecting 
either  the  nature  or  extent  of  his  Episcopal  jurisdiction. 

Whether  the  ministers  or  congregations  subject  to  a  Bishop 
be  more  or  less  numerous  ;  or  whether  instead  of  one  Bishop 
being  fixed  to  a  particular  diocese,  the  Bishops  of  a  certain 
district  should  govern  the  church  in  common  as  a  college  of 
Bishops,  are  matters  of  expediency,  of  human  policy,  of 
ecclesiastical  regulation ;  and  do  not  affect  the  essential  point 
of  the  superiority  of  Bishops  to  Presbyters  in  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  government.  Timothy  and  Titus  were  evi- 
dently superior  to  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  of  Ephesus  and 
Crete ;  for  the  powers  of  ordination  and  government  were 
expressly  vested  in  them,  and  not  in  the  Elders  or  Presby- 
ters. And  yet  when  Timothy  and  Titus,  in  order  to  spread 
the  gospel  as  Evangelists,  left  the  cities  of  Ephesus  and 
Crete,  they  surely  did  not  forfeit  their  superior  powers.     To 

*  I  quote  this  learned  Christian  antiquarian  with  the  more  confidence, 
because  I  find  you,  in  your  "  Letters  on  Frequent  Communion,"  (p.  27) 
relying  with  confidence  on  his  "collection  and  elucidation"  of  "autho- 
rities "  with  respect  to  an  important  practice  in  the  primitive  church. 

t  Book  ix.  chap.  ii.  sect  1. 

11 


122  hobart's  apology 

make  the  existence  of  these  powers  absolutely  dependent  on 
their  having  been  exclusively  fixed  to  a  certain  district,  would 
be  absurd  indeed.* 

It  was  a  rule  in  the  primitive  church,  that  the  office  and 
characters  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters  extended  over  the  whole 
church,  and  were  not  confined  to  any  particular  place. 
Wherever  a  Bishop  or  Presbyter  travelled,  he  had  a  right  to 
exercise  his  function  on  just  and  proper  occasions.  But  it 
was  also  a  rule,  that  the  ordinary  exercise  of  the  office  of  a 
Bishop  was  confined  to  a  particular  district,  and  of  an  inferior 
minister  to  a  particular  congregation.  No  person  will  con- 
tend that  a  Minister  ceases  to  be  a  Minister  when  he  does 
not  confine  his  functions  to  a  particular  congregation,  but  acts 
as  a  Missionary  through  various  congregations  and  districts. 
And  is  it  not  strange  that  any  person  should  contend  that  a 
Bishop  ceases  to  be  a  Bishop,  because  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances of  the  church  may  require  his  superintending  distinct 
and  distant  churches  ?  Who  would  think,  for  example,  of 
seriously  maintaining  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  in 
Maryland  forfeits  his  distinctive  Episcopal  character,  because 
the  circumstance  of  there  being  no  other  Roman  Catholic 

*  On  this  subject  the  opinion  of  one  who  has  not  been  considered  a 
high  Churchman  should  have  weight — Bishop  Hoadly,  in  his  "De- 
fence of  Episcopal  Ordination,"  thus  observes:  (Chap,  i.)  "It  is  of 
small  importance  whether  Timothy  and  Titus  were  fixed  Bishops,  pro- 
perly so  called,  or  not.  Perhaps  at  the  first  plantation  of  churches  there 
was  no  such  necessity  of  fixed  Bishops  as  was  found  afterwards ;  or  per- 
haps at  first  the  superintendency  of  such  persons  as  Timothy  and  Titus 
was  thought  requisite  in  many  different  churches,  as  their  several  needs 
required.  If  so,  their  office  certainly  was  the  same  in  all  churches  to 
which  they  went ;  and  ordination  reserved  to  such  as  they  were,  persons 
superior  to  the  settled  Presbyters.  But  as  to  Ephesiis  and  Crete,  it  is 
manifest  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  to  stay  with  the  churches  there 
as  long  as  their  presence  was  not  more  wanted  at  other  places.  And, 
besides,  if  they  did  leave  these  churches,  there  was  as  good  reason  that 
they  should  return  to  them,  to  perform  the  same  office  of  ordination, 
when  there  was  again  occasion,  as  there  was  at  first,  why  they  should  be 
sent  by  St.  Paul  to  that  purpose." 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  123 

Bishop  in  this  country  requires  him  frequently  to  leave  his 
residence  and  church  in  Baltimore,  and  to  exercise  his  Epis- 
copel  functions  in  Pennsylvania,  in  New-Y'ork,  and  Massa- 
chusetts ?  Did  circumstances  in  like  manner  prevent  there 
being  only  one  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  in  the  United 
States,  who  would  contend  that  he  could  not  be  a  Bishop, 
because,  instead  of  confining  his  Episcopal  functions  to  the 
clergy  and  congregations  of  a  certain  district,  he  extended 
his  superintendence  over  distant  churches  or  districts  ?  Yet, 
manifestly  absurd  as  such  a  conclusion  would  be,  the  oppo- 
nents of  Episcopacy  have  founded  a  serious  argument  against 
the  superiority  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  from  the  circumstance 
that  they  were  not  exclusively  fixed  to  the  churches  of  Ephe- 
sus  and  Crete.  Admit  this  argument,  and  you  strip  of  their 
ministerial  powers  the  numerous  Missionaries  who,  instead 
of  being  exclusively  fixed  to  a  particular  congregation,  itine- 
rate through  the  country. 

In  like  manner  circumstances  may  render  it  expedient  that 
the  Bishops  of  a  particular  country,  instead  of  appropriating 
to  each  Bishop  a  particular  district,  should  exercise  their 
powers  in  common  over  the  whole  church.  In  this  situation 
were  the  Bishops  in  Scotland  on  the  abolition  of  Episcopacy. 
Deprived  of  their  dioceses  by  the  civil  authority,  they  formed 
themselves  into  a  college  of  Bishops,  and  exercised  in  com- 
mon their  Episcopal  functions  among  their  scattered  flocks 
and  ministers.  To  maintain  that,  because  the  arm  of  civil 
power  stripped  them  of  their  dioceses,  they  forfeited  their 
Episcopal  prerogatives,  when  they  still  exercised  these  pre- 
rogatives (whenever  they  could  do  it  with  safety)  among 
their  scattered  Presbyters  and  flocks,  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  un- 
generous. Yet  no  less  a  man  than  Dr.  Camphell^  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  Lectures^  seriously  contends  that  the  Scotch 
Bishops,  when  they  lost  their  dioceses,  lost  their  Episcopal 
character.  His  able  opponent,  Bishop  Skinner,  of  Aberdeen, 
very  properly  inquires — Did  Dr.  Campbell  lose  his  ministe- 
rial character  when  he  gave  up  his  pastoral  charge,  and  be- 


124  hobart's  apology 

came  principal  of  Marishal  College  ?  And  the  inquiry  may 
also  be  made — If  persecution  should  deprive  Presbyterian 
ministers  of  their  congregations,  and  in  this  situation  they 
were  to  constitute  themselves  into  a  Presbytery,  and  with- 
out particular  pastoral  charges,  to  minister,  in  common,  to 
the  spiritual  wants  of  their  scattered  flocks,  would  they  cease 
to  be  Presbyterian  ministers  ? 

There  is  an  evident  distinction  between  the  powers  of  office^ 
and  the  exercise  of  them.  This  last  is  styled  jurisdiction. 
They  are  not  only  distinct  but  independent.  The  arm  of 
power  may  deprive  a  Bishop  of  his  jurisdiction,  yet  he  still 
retains  his  Episcopal  functions.  The  ecclesiastical  authority 
may  regulate  this  jurisdiction,  may  determine  its  extent ;  the 
particular  ministers  and  congregations  which  it  may  include  ; 
the  manner  in  which  it  may  be  exercised,  whether  in  a  parti- 
cular district  or  diocese,  or  over  the  church  at  large.  All 
these  matters  of  jurisdiction  are  different  from  the  powers  of 
office.  The  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  may,  from  some  particu- 
lar circumstances,  be  confined  to  a  single  congregation,  or  be 
extended  over  an  extensive  province  or  country;  his  seat 
may  be  a  small  village,  or  a  large  and  populous  city ;  the 
civil  magistrate  may  sink  him  into  obscurity,  and  crush  him 
with  the  arm  of  persecution,  or  may  surround  him  with  the 
splendour  of  worldly  honours ;  a  Dioclesian  may  hunt  him 
to  the  stake,  or  a  Constantine  exalt  him  to  the  palace.  These 
varying  circumstances  do  not  affect  the  essentials  of  his  office, 
the  power  of  ordaining  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  and  of  ruling 
them  and  their  congregations  when  they  are  placed  over  any. 
The  true  point  of  contest  between  Episcopalians  and  their 
adversaries,  is  as  to  the  inherent  and  exclusive  right  of  Bishops 
to  ordain  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  and  to  rule  over  them  and 
their  congregations  ;  and  not  as  to  the  extent  or  the  manner  of 
the  exercise  of  this  right,  which  must  depend  upon  circum- 
stances, and  be  matters  of  ecclesiastical  regulation.  The 
powers  oi  a.  Presbyter  are  the  same,  whatever  be  the  name  or 
the  extent  of  his  pastoral  charge.     In  like  manner,  "  whether 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  125 

the  place  in  which  the  people  reside  who  are  under  the  Bi- 
shop^s  charge,  be  called  a.  parish  or  a  diocese  ;  or  whether  his 
charge  be  of  larger  or  smaller  extent^  can  make  no  difference  in 
the  nature  of  Episcopacy,  It  is  the  pre-eminence  of  office,  or 
the  superior  authority  annexed  to  the  Episcopal  character 
that  gives  the  true  criterion  of  Prelacy."*  According  to  St. 
Jerome,  "  Wherever  a  Bishop  is,  whether  at  Rome  or  at  Eu- 
gubium,  at  Constantinople  or  at  Rhegium,  at  Alexandria  or 
at  Tani,  he  has  the  same  merit,  and  the  same  priesthood. f 
Neither  the  power  of  riches,  nor  the  humility  of  poverty 
makes  a  Bishop  higher  or  lower,  but  they  are  all  successors 
of  the  Apostles.'^''  Diocesan  Bishops,  for  such  confessedly 
were  the  Bishops  in  the  time  of  St.  Jerome  are  all  successors 
of  the  Apostles. 

5.  Nor  do  Churchmen  by  any  means  consider  it  essential 
to  Episcopacy,  that  the  Bishop  should  exercise  sole  and 
absolute  power  in  the  church. 

He  alone  indeed  possesses  the  power  of  ordination ;  he 
only  conveys,  from  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church,  the  mi- 
nisterial commission.  But  the  manner  and  the  restrictions, 
according  to  which  this  power  is  to  be  exercised,  are  subjects 
of  ecclesiastical  regulation.  Accordingly,  in  the  Church  of 
England,  as  well  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  the 
Bishop  does  not  ordain  but  with  the  concurrence  of  his  Pres- 
byters, and  with  their  approbation,  and  that  also  of  the  Laity, 
to  the  religious  and  moral  qualifications  of  the  person  or- 
dained. In  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  America, 
"  the  Bishops,  the  Clergy,  and  the  Laity^^  exercise  jointly 


*  Bishop  Skinner,  of  Aberdeen.   Primitive  Truth  and  Order,  in  answer 
to  Dr.  Campbell. 

t  The  term  priesthood  is  here  used  as  an  appellative  to  denote  minis- 
terial function.  No  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  the  term  to 
prove  that  a  Bishop  is  no  more  than  a  Priest.  Since,  whatever  may  be 
St.  Jerome's  opinion  of  their  being  originally  the  same,  in  his  time  they 
were  confessedly  distinct,  according  to  the  unanimous  concession  of  the 
opponents  of  Episcopacy;  and  the  Bishops  of  Constantinople,  and  of 
Rhegium,  and  of  the  other  places  were  diocesan  Bishops. 
11* 


126  hoeart's  apology 

the  power  of  making  ecclesiastical  laws.  And  in  the  Church 
of  England  the  ecclesiastical  laws  made  by  the  Bishops  and 
Clergy  in  convocation^  are  not  binding  until  they  have  received 
the  assent  of  the  Laity.,  of  the  King,  Lords,  and  Commons. 
The  rule  of  ecclesiastical  legislation  is  thus  settled  by  that 
able  defender  of  Episcopacy,  the  "judicious"  Hooker. 
"  The  most  natural  and  religious  course  in  making  laws  is, 
that  the  matter  of  them  be  taken  from  the  judgment  of  the 
wisest  in  those  things  which  they  are  to  concern.  In  matters 
of  God,  to  set  down  a  form  of  prayer,  a  solemn  confession  of 
the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  ceremonies  meet  for 
the  exercise  of  religion,  it  were  unnatural  not  to  think  the 
Pastors  and  Bishops  of  our  souls  a  great  deal  more  fit,  than 
men  of  secular  trades  and  callings :  howbeit,  when  all,  which 
the  wisdom  of  all  sorts  can  do,  is  done  for  the  devising  of  laws 
in  the  church,  it  is  the  general  consent  of  all  that  giveth  them 
the  form  and  vigour  of  laws."*  It  is  thought  by  some,  that 
this  joint  association  of  the  three  orders,  of  Bishops,  Clergy, 
and  Laity,  in  making  laws,  has  the  sanction  of  apostolic  and 
primitive  usage ;  since  in  the  memorable  council  at  Jerusalem, 
there  were  the  Apostles,  Elders,  and  Brethren.  And  St. 
Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  in  the  third  century,  in  all  eccle- 
siastical matters  acted  with  the  advice  of  his  Clergy  and 
Laity.  There  may  be  others,  on  the  contrar}^,  among  Epis- 
copalians, who  maintain  that  this  mode  of  ecclesiastical 
legislation  is  not  strictly  apostolic  and  primitive.  But  the 
sense  of  the  church  is  to  be  learnt  from  her  acknowledged 
institutions  and  practice,  and  not  from  the  opinions  of  indivi- 
duals. 

It  is  evident  that  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  ordination, 
with  the  approbation  of  the  Presbyters  and  Laity,  to  the  quali- 
fications and  character  of  the  person  ordained ;  the  concur- 
rent exercise  of  the  powers  of  legislation  by  the  Bishops,  the 
Clergy,  and  the  Laity;  and  the  consultation  of  his  Clergy 

*  Hooker.  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  viii.  chap.  iii.  p.  344,  Oxford 
edition. 


FOR  apostolic;  order.  127 

and  people,  even  in  the  executive  and  judicial  measures  of 
the  Bishop,  do  not  violate  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy. 
These  essentials  are,  that  the  Bishop  should  have  the  exclu- 
sive power  of  ordination.,  and  the  supreme  power  of  governing 
the  church.  Neither  the  Clergy  nor  the  Laity  presume  to 
claim  the  power  of  ordination,  or  the  supreme  power  of  gov- 
erning in  the  church :  both  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Bishop. 

6.  There  is  no  particular  mode  of  electing  or  appointing 
Bishops  essential  to  Episcopacy. 

The  election  or  appointment  of  a  Bishop,  and  his  ordina- 
tion, or  his  receiving  his  Episcopal  commission,  are  entirely 
distinct.  As  it  is  a  maxim  that  the  greater  cannot  be  or- 
dained by  the  less,  nor  those  confer  the  power  of  ordination 
who  have  never  received  it,  the  ordination  of  a  Bishop,  the 
conferring  on  him  the  Episcopal  authority,  can  be  performed 
by  Bishops  only.  But  the  electing  or  appointing  of  the  per- 
son who  is  to  be  ordained  Bishop  is  a  matter  of  expediency 
and  ecclesiastical  regulation.  In  the  primitive  ages  the 
Bishop  was  elected  by  the  Clergy  and  people.  But  after  the 
empire  became  Christian,  the  Bishops  were  generally  ap- 
pointed by  the  Emperor.  Their  ordination  was  always  a 
distinct  thing,  and  was  performed  hj  Bishops.  In  the 
Church  of  England  the  Bishops  are  virtually  appointed  by 
the  King.  In  this  country  they  are  elected  by  the  Clergy, 
and  by  the  Laity  represented  by  their  delegates  in  conven- 
tion. This  appointment  or  election  does  not  make  them 
Bishops.  Their  ordination  only,  which  is  performed  by 
Bishops,  vests  them  with  the  Episcopal  office.  Obvious  as 
this  distinction  is,  there  are  found  opponents  of  Episcopacy 
who  seriously  maintain,  that  because  Bishops  are  appointed 
by  the  civil  magistrate,  or  by  the  Clergy  and  people,  their 
authority  is  of  secular  origin.  As  well  might  they  contend, 
that  because  Presbyterian  congregations  elect  or  appoint 
their  ministers,  this  election  or  appointment,  and  not  ordina- 
tion by  the  Presbytery,  confers  the  Ministerial  authority. 

7.  Episcopalians  do  not  contend  that  in  an  extensive  and 


128  hobart's  apology 

unqualified  sense  there  is  any  form  of  church  government  of 
divine  right. 

Church  government  is  often  applied  by  Episcopal  writers, 
in  a  confined,  sense,  to  the  orders  of  the  ministry.  And  in 
this  confined  signification,  Episcopal  government  is  of  divine 
right.  But  in  a  more  extensive  sense,  church  government 
includes  the  particular  organization  by  which  ecclesiastical 
power  is  exercised,  and  discipline  administered ;  and  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  by  which  public  worship  is  conducted. 
In  this  extensive  signification.  Episcopalians  maintain,  that 
there  is  no  precise  form  of  church  government  of  divine 
right.  The  organization  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  the 
forms  of  discipline,  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  public  wor- 
ship, they  maintain,  are  not  laid  down  in  scripture  ;  and, 
"therefore,  by  common  consent  and  authority,  may  be 
altered,  abridged,  enlarged,  amended  or  otherwise  disposed 
of,  as  may  seem  most  convenient  for  the  edification  of  the 
people. ^^*  The  single  point  for  which  they  contend  is,  that 
Episcopacy  was  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  ;  that 
the  three  grades  of  ministers.  Bishops.,  Priests,  and  Deacons, 
with  their  appropriate  powers,  are  of  "  divine  and  apostolical 
institution.''^ 

The  government  of  the  church,  therefore,  is  evidently  not 
to  be  identified  with  its  ministry.  The  former,  considered  as 
including  discipline,  rites  and  ceremonies,  may  be  altered  by 
human  authority :  the  latter  can  only  be  altered  by  that 
divine  authority  which  originally  instituted  it.  If  we  change 
the  distinctive  grades  and  powers  of  the  ministry,  and  take 
the  power  of  ordination  from  that  grade  of  ministers  with 
whom  it  was  originally  vested,  we  make  the  ministry  of 
human  instead  of  divine  authority ;  we  destroy  the  connec- 
tion between  the  ministry  and  its  divine  Head,  Jesus  Christ, 
whose  commission  alone  can  give  it  validity.  But  while 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  with  the  powers  which  they 

*  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  129 

respectively  received  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  are  pre- 
served inviolate,  the  church  possesses  the  right,  according  to 
Episcopalians,  to  create  new  officers  ;  and  to  model  disci- 
pline, rites  and  ceremonies,  as  may  seem  best  for  edification ; 
provided  there  be  no  violation  of  an}"  divine  command  or 
institution. 

This  principle,  that  in  an  extensive  sense  there  is  no  form 
of  church  government  in  all  its  parts  of  divine  right,  is  main- 
tained by  all  Episcopalians.  It  is  particularly  vindicated  by 
the  celebrated  Hooker,  in  his  learned  ''  Ecclesiastical  Poli- 
ty." The  Puritans  maintained  that  "  God  hath  delivered  in 
scripture  a  complete,  particular,  immutable  form  of  church 
polity."  Of  course  they  opposed  the  Church  of  England  for 
including  in  her  discipline  and  public  services  many  things 
not  expressly  commanded  by  the  word  of  God.  In  opposi- 
tion to  them.  Hooker  contended,  "  to  make  new  articles  of 
faith  and  doctrine,  no  man  thinketh  it  lawful  ;  new  laws  of 
government,  what  commonwealth  or  church  is  there  which 
maketh  not  either  at  one  time  or  another  .?"*  He  contends, 
that  as  "  external  rites  and  ceremonies "  do  not  affect  the 
substance  of  the  faith,  "  in  such  things,  discretion  may  teach 
the  church  what  is  convenient;"  and  that  in  regard  to  them, 
"  the  church  is  no  further  tied  unto  scripture,  than  that 
against  scripture  nothing  be  admitted  in  the  church. "j* 
Some  Episcopal  churches  have  incorporated  in  their  regimen 
many  ecclesiastical  officers  not  known  in  other  Episcopal 
churches,  nor  deemed  essential  by  any.  In  regard  to  them 
Hooker  observes,  "As  for  Deans,  Prebendaries,  Parsons, 
Vicars,  Curates,  Archdeacons,  Chancellors,  Officials,  Com- 
missaries, and  such  other  like  names,"  (he  might  have 
added  Archbishops)  "  which  being  not  found  in  holy  scrip- 
ture, we  have  been  thereby,  through  some  men's  error, 
thought  to  allow  of  ecclesiastical  degrees  not  known,  nor 
ever  heard  of  in  the  better  ages  of  former  times  ;  all  these 
are,  in  truth,  but  titles  of  office^  whereunto  partly  ecclesiasti- 
*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  iii.  sec.  10.  f  Sec.  3. 


130  hobart's  apology 

cal  persons,  and  partly  others  are  in  sundry  forms  and  condi- 
tions admitted,  as  the  state  of  the  church  doth  need  ;  degrees 
of  order  "  (by  which  he  means  the  grades  or  degrees  of  the 
ministry,)  "  still  continuing  the  same  they  were  from  the 
first  beginning  y*  Whatsoever  things  the  word  of  God  hath 
neither  commanded  nor  prohibited,  the  church  possesses  the 
right  which  every  other  society  possesses,  to  prescribe  and 
enjoin. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  principle  strictty  Episcopal,  received  by 
all  Churchmen,  that  the  particular  organization  of  church  gov- 
ernment^ matters  of  discipline^  rites  and  ceremonies,  are  not 
unalterably  determined  in  scripture.  In  this  extensive  sense 
there  is  no  particular  form  of  church  government  of  divine  right. 
But  it  is  unfair  and  uncandid  to  charge  Hooker,  Whitgift, 
and  other  eminent  divines  who  advocate  and  defend  this 
principle,  with  giving  up  the  claims  of  Episcopacy  to  divine 
institution.  What  are  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy  ?  The 
''  degrees  of  order  " — Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  and 
their  appropriate  powers.  And  these  Hooker  explicitly 
traces  back  to  the  institution  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
Alluding  to  a  certain  passage  of  scripture  which  he  thinks 
improperly  applied  to  prove  the  degrees  of  ecclesiastical  order, 
Hooker  observes,  "  What  orders  of  ecclesiastical  persons 
there  ought  to  be  in  the  Church  of  Christ — we  are  not  to 
learn  from  thence,  but  out  of  other  parts  of  holy  scripture, 
WHEREBY  it  clearly  appeareth,  that  churches  apostolic  did 
know  but  three  degrees  in  the  power  of  ecclesiastical  order  ; 
at  the  first  Apostles,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons;  afterwards, 
instead  of  Apostles,  Bishops,  concerning  whose  order  we  are 
to  speak  in  the  seventh  book."|  And  in  yet  more  decisive 
terms  he  speaks — "I  may  secure^,  therefore,  conclude, 
that  there  are  in  this  day  in  the  Church  of  England,  no 
other  than  the  same  degrees  of  ecclesiastical  orders.  Bishops, 
Presbyters,   and  Deacons,  which   had   their    beginning  from 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v.  sec.  78.  f  Sec.  78. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  131 

Christ  and  his  blessed  Apostles  themselves.''^*  We  find  Hook- 
er further  declaring — "  It  was  the  general  received  opinion 
of  the  ancient  Christian  world,  that  Ecclesia  est  in  episcopo, 
the  OUTWARD  BEING  of  a  CHURCH,  consisted  in  the  having 
of  a  Bishop."  "  That  so  the  ancient  Fathers  did  think 
of  Episcopal  regiment ;  that  they  held  this  order  as  a  thing 
received  from  the  blessed  Apostles  themselves^  and  autho- 
rized even  from  JleaveUyWe  may,  perhaps,  more  easily  prove, 
than  obtain  that  they  all  shall  grant  it  who  see  it  proved." 
"  And  shall  we  think  that  James  was  made  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, Evodius  Bishop  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  the  Angels 
in  the  churches  of  Asia  Bishops  ;  that  Bishops  every  where 
were  appointed  to  take  away  factions,  contentions,  and 
schisms,  without  some  like  direction  and  instigation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost }  Wherefore  let  us  not  fear  to  be  herein  bold 
and  peremptory,  that  if  any  thing  in  the  church's  government, 
surely  the  first  institution  of  Bishops  was  from  Heaven,  was 
even  of  God;  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  author  of  it.''^  f 

*  These  extracts  are  taken  from  the  fifth  book  of  Hooker's  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Polity,  which  was  published  before  his  death.  Doubts  have  been 
raised  by  some,  whether  the  three  last  books  published  after  his  death 
are  genuine.  The  following  statement  appears  in  substance  in  the  appen- 
dix to  the  Life  of  Hooker.  Hooker  wrote  three  books  in  addition  to  those 
published  by  himself.  The  rough  draught  of  these  books  had  been  much 
defaced  and  dismembered  by  the  persons  into  whose  hands  they  had 
fallen.  In  this  situation  they  were  delivered  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  to 
Dr.  Spencer,  "  to  be  made  as  perfect  as  they  might  be,  by  him,  who  both 
knew  Mr.  Hooker's  hand-writing,  and  was  best  acquainted  with  his 
intentions."  It  appears  improbable  that  there  should  be  any  material 
corruptions  in  these  books,  published  by  Dr.  Spencer,  "  between  whom 
and  Hooker  there  was  so  friendly  a  friendship,  that  they  continually  ad- 
vised together  in  all  their  studies,  and  particularly  in  what  concerned 
these  books  of  Polity."  The  omissions  and  interpolations  in  some  copies 
of  these  books  do  not  respect  Episcopacy,  but  some  other  matter.  There 
could  have  been  no  inducement  to  interpolation  on  the  subject  of  Episco- 
pacy. For  there  is  no  sentiment  advanced  concerning  it  in  his  seventh 
book  which  is  not  contained  in  his  fifth  book,  which  is  undoubtedly 
genuine;  and  in  which  he  asserts,  that  "  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Dea- 
■   "-S  had  their  beginning  from  Christ  and  his  blessed  Apostles." 

■•  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  vii.  sect.  5. 


132  hobart's  apology 

In  like  manner,  Whitgift,  in  confuting  the  principle  of 
the  Puritans,  that  there  ought  not  to  be  any  thing  in  the 
church's  government  or  worship  which  is  not  prescribed  in 
the  word  of  God,  maintained  that  "  there  is  no  certain  kind 
of  government  or  discipline  prescribed  to  the  church,  but 
that  the  same  may  be  altered  as  the  profit  of  the  churches 
require."  Still  he  maintained  all  that  is  essential  to  Epis- 
copacy, the  superiority  of  Bishops  to  Presbyters  and  Deacons 
by  divine  institution.  In  a  letter  to  Beza.,  Archbishop  Whit- 
gift  observes — "  We  make  no  doubt  but  that  the  Episcopal 
DEGREE  which  wc  bear,  is  an  institution  apostolical  and 
divine  ;  and  so  hath  always  been  held  by  a  continual  course 
of  times  from  the  Apostles'*  to  this  very  age  of  ours."  "  And 
what  Aaron  was  to  his  sons  and  to  the  Levites,  this  the 
Bishops  were  to  the  Priests  and  Deacons ;  and  so  esteemed 
of  the  Fathers  to  be  by  divine  institution."* 

It  is  evidently  uncandid  and  unfair,  therefore,  to  urge,  that 
because  Hooker  and  other  divines  maintain  what  is,  in  fact, 
a  church  principle^  that  in  an  extensive  sense  there  is  no  pre- 
cise form  of  church  government  in  all  its  parts  prescribed  in 
the  word  of  God ;  they,  therefore,  give  up  Episcopacy  as  a 
divine  institution.  They  expressly  maintain,  in  the  strongest 
language,  all  that  is  essential  to  Episcopacy,  that  Bishops  are 
superior  to  Presbyters  and  Deacons  by  "  divine  and  apostolical 
institution."  It  is  equally  uncandid  and  unfair  to  urge,  from 
particular  expressions  of  some  of  the  Reformers  at  an  early 
period  of  the  Reformation,  that  the  Church  of  England  was 
not  constituted  upon  the  principle  that  Episcopacy  was  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Such  were  the  arbitrary 
pretensions  of  Henry  VIII.  and  such,  unhappily,  for  50771c 
/me,  the  submission  of  some  of  the  English  Reformers  to 
those  pretensions,  that  they  were  led  to  submit  to  Erastian 
principles,  which,  viewing  the  church  merely  as  a  creature 
of  the  state,  tended  to  subvert  entirely  her  spiritual  authority. 
Happily,  however,  the  Church  of  England  was  not  founded 
*  Strype's  Life  of  Whitgift,  p.  460 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  133 

on  these  principles,  and  those  of  the  Reformers  who  once 
avowed,  finally  disclaimed,  them.  We  want  no  stronger 
evidence  of  this,  than  the  fact,  that  the  Church  of  England, 
at  the  Reformation,  preserved  the  Episcopal  succession.* 
She  formed  all  her  public  offices  on  the  principles  that  there 
are  the  three  orders,  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  ;  that 

*  The  contemptible  story  of  the  JVag's  head  ordination  is  sometimes 
urged  by  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  to  invalidate  the  Episcopal  suc- 
cession of  the  Church  of  England.  According  to  this  story.  Archbishop 
Parker,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  was  consecrated  privately  at  the  JVag's 
head  tavern,  by  persons  who  were  not  Bishops.  It  ought,  in  justice,  to 
be  mentioned,  that  the  candid  opponents  of  Episcopacy  disdain  to  press 
into  their  cause  this  story,  entirely  destitute  of  proof,  and  which  was 
invented  by  the  Papists  to  injure  the  Church  of  England.  Its  falsehood 
has  been  exposed  by  many  writers,  and  especially  by  Bishop  Burnet, 
who  will  not  be  accused  of  being  unduly  partial  to  the  Episcopal  cause. 
*«  This  story  was  not  thought  of.  Bishop  Burnet  observes,  until  forty  years 
after"  the  period  of  Bishop  Parker's  consecration.  It  was  then  contra- 
dicted by  "  the  old  Earl  of  Nottingham,  who  had  been  at  the  consecra- 
tion, declared  it  was  at  Lambeth,  and  described  all  the  circumstances  of 
it,  and  satisfied  all  reasonable  men  that  it  was  according  to  the  form  of 
the  Church  of  England.  The  registers,  both  of  the  See  of  Canterbury, 
and  of  the  Records  of  the  Crown,  do  all  fully  agree  with  his  relation. 
And  above  all  other  testimonies,  the  original  instrument  of  Archbishop 
Parker's  consecration  lies  still  among  his  other  papers  in  the  library  of 
Corpus  Christi  College,  at  Cambridge,  w^hich  I  saw  and  read.  It  is  as 
manifestly  an  original  writing  as  any  that  I  have  ever  had  in  my  hands. 
I  have  put  it  in  the  collection  for  the  more  full  discovery  of  the  impu- 
dence of  the  fiction."  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  book  ii.  p. 
402.  It  is  indeed  incredible,  that  so  important,  and  at  that  period,  so 
particularly  interesting  an  event  as  the  consecration  of  an  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  should  have  been  privately  and  illegally  performed,  and  yet 
that  no  discovery  of  it  should  be  made  until  forty  years  after ;  and  that  in 
the  mean  time  the  ordination  should  be  sanctioned  as  valid  by  all  the 
public  registers,  and  by  various  acts  of  Parliament.  If,  in  opposition  to 
these  striking  facts,  we  doubt  the  regularity  of  Archbishop  Parker's  ordi- 
nation, how  easy  will  it  be  to  throw  doubt  on  the  best  authenticated 
events  !* 

*  The  learned  Dr.  Lingard,  the  standard  historian  of  the  Romish 
church,  admits  in  his  Universal  History  the  Nag's  head  story  to  be  a 
fable ;  and  subsequently,  in  four  letters  to  a  Romanist,  defends  this  ad- 
mission by  the  clearest  and  most  incontestible  proofs. — Ed. 

12 


134  hobart's  apology 

these  "  orders"  were  "  constituted"  by  Almighty  God,  by 
"  his  divine  providence,"  and  by  his  "  Holy  Spirit  ;"*  and 
that  the  Bishops  alone  have  the  power  of  ordination. | 

When,  therefore,  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  urge  that 
the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  many  of  her 
most  eminent  divines,  did  not  maintain  that  Episcopacy  was 
the  institution  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  Episcopalians  have 
only  to  reply — The  sense  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  to 
Episcopacy,  is  to  be  learnt  from  her  public  offices,  and  from 
her  practice,  and  not  from  the  sentiments  of  individuals. 
Will  you  allow  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  is  anti-Calvinis- 
tic  in  her  doctrines,  because  many  of  her  most  eminent 
divines  are  confessedly  so.  The  Church  of  England  receives 
no  one  as  a  minister  who  has  not  been  Episcopally  ordained. 
Some  of  the  Reformers  entertained,  at  a  certain  period,  lax 
notions  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy.  But  they  were,  at 
the  same  time,  equally  erroneous  in  many  of  their  opinions 
concerning  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
If  Cranmer's  sentiments  were  at  one  time  favourable  to  the 
equality  of  Bishops  and  Priests,  so  were  they  also  to  tran- 
substantiation.  But  he  renounced  his  errors  on  both  these 
points.  You  will  not  dispute  Bishop  Burnet's  authority, 
who  asserts,  "  In  Cranmer's  paper  some  singular  opinions 
of  his  about  the  nature  of  ecclesiastical  offices  will  be  found ; 
but  as  they  are  delivered  by  him  with  all  possible  modesty, 
so  they  were  not  established  as  the  doctrine  of  the  churchy  but 

*  The  declarations  of  the  prayers  in  the  ordination  offices. 

f  The  conduct  of  Archbishop  Grindal,  who,  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, granted  a  license  to  preach  to  John  Morrison  a  Presbyterian 
divine,  is  often  triumphantly  adduced  as  a  proof  that  the  Church  of 
England  admits  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  Is  it  possible 
that  the  irregular  conduct  of  an  Archbishop,  "  who  was  thought  too 
gentle  and  remiss  in  his  management,  and  to  whom  the  privy  council 
wrote  to  complain  of  the  relaxation  of  discipline,"*  should  be  urged  by 
men  of  sense  and  candour  as  evidence  that  the  Church  of  England  admits 
what  all  her  public  offices  and  her  general  practice  disclaim ! 

*  Collier's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  571. 


FOR   APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  135 

laid  aside  as  particular  conceits  of  his  own ;  and  it  seems 
that  afterwards  he  changed  his  own  opinion.  For  he  sub- 
scribed the  book  which  was  soon  after  set  out,  which  was 
directly  contrary  to  those  opinions."*  He  published  also  a 
Catechism,  in  which,  according  to  Bishop  Burnet,  "  he  fully 
owns  the  divine  institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests."! 

It  is  useless  then  (the  Episcopalian  may  continue  to  ad- 
dress his  opponents)  to  dispute,  whether  some  of  the  divines 
of  the  English  Church  did  not  acknowledge  that  there  is  no 
precise  form  of  government  in  all  its  parts  of  divine  right. 
This  is  not  bringing  the  matter  to  a  point ;  "  it  is  not  taking 
the  question  by  the  proper  handle."  The  only  essential 
question  is.  Were  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  with  their 
distinctive  and  subordinate  powers,  instituted  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  ?  And  on  this  question  will  you  acknowledge 
with  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country,  that  "  it  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  read- 
ing holy  scriptures  and  ancient  authors,  that,  from  the  Apos- 
tles' times,  there  have  been  these  orders  of  Ministers,  Bishops, 
Priests,   and  Deacons  .?"J     Will   you  maintain,  with   these 

*  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  i.  p.  289. 

t  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  ii.  p.  71.  An  extract  from  this 
Catechism  appears  in  Dr.  Chandler's  "  Appeal  further  defended,"  (p. 
63.)  In  this  tract,  and  in  his  "  Appeal  defended,"  will  be  found  a  full 
vindication  of  the  Reformers  from  the  charge  of  not  maintaining  the 
divine  institutions  of  Episcopacy. 

X  The  Church  of  England,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  not 
only  assert,  that  those  now  called  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  distinct, 
but,  in  fact,  exalt  a  Bishop  above  a  Presbyter  by  a  solemn  ordination- 
There  can  be  no  doubt  then  that  in  their  judgment  the  offices  are  distinct. 
Why  then,  it  may  be  asked,  do  they  appoint  to  be  read,  in  the  ordering  of 
Bishops,  some  portions  of  scripture  which  are  considered  as  designating 
not  those  who  are  now  strictly  called  Bishops,  but  the  order  of  Presby- 
ters, to  whom  in  the  New  Testament  the  title  Bishop  is  often  given  ? 
The  answer  may  be — These  passages  describe  the  general  duties  of  pas- 
tors, as  overseers  of  souls  ;  and  may,  therefore,  as  an  admonition  to  duty, 
be  with  propriety  applied,  either  to  the  Presbyter,  as  the  overseer  of  a 
particular  congregation,  or  to  the  Bishop  (strictly  so  called)  as  an  over- 
seer of  the  church  at  large. 


136  hobart's  apology 

churches,  that  "  Almighty  God,  by  his  divine  providence  and 
Holy  Spirit  appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers  in  his  church ;" 
and  that  these  orders  are  "Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons?"* 
Will  3^ou  adopt  the  practice  of  those  churches,  and  acknow- 
ledge none  as  "lawful  ministers"  among  jou  "who  have 
not  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination  ?  "f  Will  you 
maintain,  with  Cranmer,  who  adopted  those  ordination  ser- 
vices, the  "  divine  institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests  !  "  Will 
5^ou  assert,  with  Whitgift,  "  that  the  Episcopal  degree  is 
an  institution  apostolical  and  divine  ? "  Will  you  allow, 
with  Hooker,  that  "  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  had 
their  beginning  from  Christ  and  his  blessed  Apostles  ?  "J 
And  "  that  besides  these  last  times,  which,  for  insolency, 
pride,  and  egregious  contempt  of  all  good  order  are  the  worst, 
there  are  none  wherein  ye  can  truly  affirm,  that  the  com- 
plete form  of  3^our  discipline,  or  the  substance  thereof,  was 
practised  ?"§  Will  j'ou  adopt  the  reasoning  of  Chilling- 
worth  in  his  celebrated  tract,  in  which  he  demonstrates 
"  the  apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy  ? "  Will  you 
assert,  with  Stillingfleet,  that  "  they  who  go  about  to 
unbishop  Timothy  and  Titus,  may  as  well  unscripture  the 
Epistles  that  were  written  to  them,  and  make  them  only  some 
particular  and  occasional  writings,  as  make  Timothy  and 
Titus  to  have  been  only  some  particular  and  occasional  o&i- 
cers;"||  and  that  "  we  have  no  greater  assurance  that  these 
Epistles  were  written  by  St.  Paul,  than  that  there  were  Bi- 
shops to  succeed  the  Apostles  in  the  care  and  government  of 
churches  ?"  Will  you  maintain,  with  a  Bishop  of  our  own  coun- 
try, who  has  been  unjustly  considered  as  aiding  your  cause, 
that  "there  having  been  an  Episcopal  power  originallj  lodged 
by  Jesus  Christ  with  his  Apostles,  and  by  them  exercised 

*  Preface  to  Ordination  Service.  f  Ibid. 

I  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v.  sect.  79. 

§  Hooker.     Preface  to  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  sect.  4. 

II  Stillingfleet's  (the  author  of  the  Irenicum)  Charge  on  the  duties  and 
Rights  of  the  Clergy,  p.  8. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  137 

generally  in  person,  but  sometimes  by  delegation  (as  in  the 
instances  of  Timothy  and  Titus,)  the  same  was  conveyed  by 
them  before  their  decease  to  one  pastor  in  each  churchy 
which  generally  comprehended  all  the  Christians  in  a  city 
and  a  convenient  surrounding  district  ?  Thus  were  created 
the  apostolic  successors."*  Will  you  maintain,  with  the  same 
Bishop,  that  "  it  seemed  good  to  the  Apostles  to  appoint 
some  of  these  with  supereminent  commission,  of  which  there 
were  instances  in  Timothy  and  Titus ;  and  the  persons  so 
appointed  have  handed  down  their  commission  through  the 
different  ages  of  the  church?  This  is  the  originally  constituted 
order."! 

If  the  non-Episcopalian  will  make  these  concessions,  and 
will  hold  this  language,  he  fairly  gives  up  his  cause.  He 
maintains  all  that  the  Episcopalian  could  wish.  And  we 
shall  be  glad  to  hear  on  what  grounds  he  will  justify  his  re- 
jection of  the  "  originally  constituted  order,"  and  of  degrees 
of  the  ministry  who  had  their  "  beginning  from  Christ  and  his 
blessed  Apostles." 

8.  The  difference  of  opinion  among  Episcopalians,  with 
respect  to  cases  of  necessity,  does  not  affect  the  essentials  of 
Episcopacy. 

These  essentials  are,  that  by  the  institution  of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  have  distinct 
powers ;  and  that  ordination,  and  the  supreme  power  of  go- 
vernment are  peculiar  to  Bishops.  But  a  question  arises  in 
respect  to  cases  of  necessity.  Are  Presbyters  justified  in  or- 
daining, when  ordination  by  Bishops  cannot  be  had?     Some 

*  Case  of  the  Episcopal  churches  considered,  p.  23.  The  Episcopal 
opinion  there  stated  "  is  to  be  understood  as  the  author's  own."  Collec- 
tion of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  p.  175.  In  the  first  named  pamphlet  the 
author  advocated  a  "  temporary  departure"  from  Episcopacy,  on  the  plea 
of  necessity,  on  the  supposition  that  "ordination  by  Bishops  could 
not  be  had."  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  validity  of  this  plea,  it 
has  been  asserted  by  many  who  have  favoured  the  highest  claims  of 
Episcopacy. 

t  Bishop  White's  Sermon  before  the  General  Convention. 
12* 


138  hobakt's  apology 

advocates  of  Episcopacy  have  maintained,  that  no  case  of 
necessity  can  justify  Presbj^ters  in  assuming  a  povrer  which 
they  never  received  from  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church.* 
While  others  have  maintained,  that,  provided  the  general  ob- 
ligation of  Episcopacy  be  acknowledged,  God  will  mercifully 
accept  the  ministrations  of  those  Presbyterially  ordained, 
where  ordination  by  Bishops  cannot  be  had. 

However  plausible  the  ple'^j  of  necessity  may  have  been  in 
some  places  in  the  early  stages  of  the  Reformation,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  a  place  where  such  a  plea  could  now  be 
maintained.  The  question,  therefore,  is  now  more  curious 
than  useful.  The  validity  of  such  a  plea  may,  however,  be 
admitted  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  highest  Episcopal 
claims,  on  the  ground,  that  as  the  public  exercises  of  the 
ministry  are  essential  to  the  preservation  of  religion,  it  may 
please  God,  where  a  duly  authorized  ministry  cannot  be  had, 
to  accept  and  bless  the  ministrations  of  those  who  have  not 
received  their  commission  by  regular  transmission  from  the 
divine  Head  of  the  Church,  through  the  appointed  channel. 
To  assert  that  the  admission  of  this  plea  is  to  give  up  the 
point  that  Episcopal  ordination  is  prescribed  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  would  be  absurd.  The  plea  of  necessity  essen- 
tially involves  an  acknowledgement  of  the  obligation  of  the 
institution,  which  is  neglected  or  violated.  Reasons  that 
might  vindicate  a  temporary  departure^  would  not  justify  a  fina 
abrogation.  vSome  of  the  highest  Churchmen,  and  ablest  ad- 
vocates of  Episcopacy,  who  have  maintained  that  "  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons  had  their  beginning  from  Christ  and  his 
blessed  Apostles  ;  "|  that  "  the  power  of  ordaining  hath  al- 
ways been  pecidiar  unto  Bishops  ;"  that  "  it  hath  not  been 
heard  of  that  Presbyters  were  ever  authorized  to  ordain ;"{ 
that  "  the  first  institution  of  Bishops  was  from  heaven,  was 

*  The  fallacy  of  this  plea  of  necessity  is  very  forcibly  urged  and 
maintained,  by  a  writer  with  the  signature  of  "Eusebius,"  in  the 
Churchman's  Magazine,  for  February,  1807,  published  in  New-Haven, 
Connecticut. 

t  Hooker.    Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  v.  sec.  78.     X  Book  vii.  sec.  6. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  139 

even  of  God;^^  have  yet  maintained  that  "  where  the  church 
must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath,  nor  can 
have  possibly  a  Bishop  to  ordain ;  in  case  of  such  necessity, 
the  ordinary  institution  of  God  hath  given  often  times,  and 
may  give  place."*  But  these  cases  of  inevitable  necessity 
alone  excepted,  none  may  ordain  but  only  Bishops. ''^'\ 

On  this  subject,  the  remarks  of  a  learned  and  judicious  j 

Commentator  on  the  offices  of  ordination  are  well  worthy  of 
attention.  J 

"  But  some  will  object  that  this"  (the  universally  owned 
principle,  that  Bishops  only  could  ordain)  "  will  deprive  di- 
vers foreign  churches  (where  they  have  no  Bishops)  of  a 
lawful  ministry,  because  their  Ministers  have  no  ordinations 
but  by  Presbyters.  To  which  I  shall  only  say,  that  the 
first  Presbyter  who  presumed  to  ordain  had  no  such  power 
given  him,  and  so  could  not  rightly  convey  that  which  he  never 
received.  There  is  no  precedent  in  scripture  of  mere  Presby- 
ters ordaining  alone  :  and  such  ordinations  would  have  been 
declared  null  in  the  primitive  ages  ;  yea,  for  1500  years 
together  no  such  were  allowed.  But  the  fairest  plea  is,  that 
some  of  these  churches  were  forced,  by  dire  necessity,  to 
this  irregularity,  by  the  obstinate  refusal  of  the  Popish 
Bishops  to  ordain  any  that  were  for  Reformation,  so  that 
they  must  either  have  such  a  Clergy  as  they  could  have,  or 
have  none  to  officiate  in  the  Protestant  way.  To  which  I 
reply,  that  where  this  necessity  was  real,  and  while  it  was 
so  (as,  perhaps,  it  might  be  in  some  places  at  first)  it  will  go 
far  to  excuse  them.'^^  "  For  those  of  the  foreign  reformed 
churches,  who  highly  value  the  Episcopal  order,  wish  for 
Bishops,  but  are,  by  persecution  and  violence,  kept  from  that 
happiness  ;  we  pity  them,  and  pray  for  them,  and  hope  God 
will  excuse  this  defect  till  they  can  remedy  it.§  But  we  are 
thankful  to  that  Providence  which  allows  us  to  keep  up  the 

*  Book  vii.  sec.  14.  f  Sec.  14. 

J  Dean  Comber,  in  his  Companion  to  the  Temple,  vol.  ii.  p.  190. 

§  This  was  the  prayer  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  for  themselves.  See 
page  95  and  96. 


140  hobart's  apology 

primitive  orders  in  a  due  subordination,  and  to  have  a  right 
and  truly  canonical  ministry  in  this  well  constituted  church, 
the  exact  transcript  of  the  primitive,  and  the  glory  of  the  Re- 
formation." 

9.  The  difference  of  opinion  among  Episcopalians,  as  to  the 
necessity  of  repeating  all  baptisms  performed  by  those  who 
have  not  received  Episcopal  ordination,  does  not  affect  the 
essentials  of  Episcopacy. 

It  is  a  principle  in  which  all  Churchmen  agree,  that  none 
have  authority  to  baptize  but  those  who  are  lawfully  ordain- 
ed ;  and  the  church  receives  none  as  lawfully  ordained,  but 
those  who  have  received  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination. 
Here  then  is  an  agreement  in  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy. 
A  difference  of  opinion,  however,  arises  as  to  a  subordinate 
point.  The  Church  of  Rome,  on  the  principle  that  none 
can  be  saved  who  are  not  baptized,  allows,  and  always  has 
allowed  of  lay  baptism.  Are  these  baptisms,  and  those  per- 
formed by  ministers  not  Episcopal ly  ordained,  valid  ;  or  are 
they  to  be  repeated  as  being  totally  invalid  ? 

On  this  question  Churchmen  divide  into  two  classes. 
Both  classes  agree  that  these  baptisms  are  irregularj  per- 
formed without  due  authority;  and  that  both  the  administra- 
tors and  recipients  (except  on  the  plea  of  "  unavoidable 
ignorance  or  involuntary  error")  incur  great  guilt.  One 
class  however  contend  that,  as  non-Episcopal  baptisms, 
administered  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  are  not 
deficient  in/on«  and  in  matter.,  but  only  in  regular  authority, 
this  deficiency  is  supplied  when  the  person  thus  baptized  is 
received  into  communion  with  the  authorized  ministry  by 
confirmation  or  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  that,  therefore,  non- 
Episcopal  baptisms  are  not  to  be  repeated.  Fieri  non  debet — 
factum  valet.  It  ought  not  to  be  done — when  done.,  it  is  valid. 
The  general  practice  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  believ- 
ed, has  been  regulated  by  this  opinion,  which  has  been  em- 
braced by  many  of  her  most  eminent  divines,  the  ablest 
advocates  of  Episcopacy. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  141 

Another  class  of  divines  contend  that  the  form  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  the  matter  water,  and  the  authority  a  regular 
commission  from  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church,  are  equally 
essential  in  the  administration  of  baptism ;  and  that,  of 
course,  where  this  regular  commission  is  wanting  in  the 
administrator,  the  baptism  is  invalid.  This  opinion  also  has 
been  embraced  and  defended  by  many  distinguished  divines 
and  laymen  of  the  Church  of  England,  particularly  by  Law- 
rence, in  his  treatises,  entitled,  "Lay  Baptism  Invalid."* 
The  venerable  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland,  it  is  believed, 
has  regulated  her  practice  by  this  opinion. 

The  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  it  is  evident, 
does  not  affect  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy.  Both  classes 
of  divines  agree  that  no  person  has  regular  authority  to 
administer  baptism  but  a  lawful  Minister,  one  who  has  receiv- 
ed "  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  The  difference 
of  opinion  arises  on  the  question — How  is  the  deficiency  of 
authority  in  non-Episcopal  baptisms  to  be  supplied .?  The 
one  contend  that  this  deficiency  is  supplied  when  the  person 
thus  baptized  receives  Confirmation  or  the  Lord's  supper 
from  the  Bishop  or  a  lawful  Minister  :  and  the  other  contend, 
that  the  person  has  never  received  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
which  he  must,  therefore,  receive  from  an  administrator  duly 
authorized. 

But  the  assertion  has  been  often  triumphantly  made,  that 
according  to  the  last  of  these  opinions,  there  have  been 
Ministers^  and  even  Bishops  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  who 
have  never  received  Christian  Baptism.  There  is  an  easy 
and  obvious  answer,  which  should  instantly  silence  the  tri- 
umphant ridicule  with  which  this  assertion  has  been  gene- 
rally advanced.  The  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Church  of 
England  have  never  explicitly  sanctioned  the  opinion  on 
which  this  assertion  is  founded.  On  the  contrary,  both 
churches  repeatedly  have  at  least  admitted  the  principle, 
that  a  non-Episcopal  baptism,  deficient  only  in  the  authority 

*  Also  Dr.  Waterland  in  his  masterly  argument  vv'ith  Kelsal. — Editor. 


142  hobart's  apology 

of  the  administrator,  and  not  in  the  essence  of  the  sacrament, 
which  is,  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity^  receives  the  seal 
of  authority,  and  becomes  complete  and  valid,  when  the  per- 
son thus  baptized  receives  Confirmation  or  the  Lord's  sup- 
per from  those  duly  authorized.  At  the  same  time,  these 
churches  do  not  prevent  their  ministers  and  members  from 
acting  on  the  contrary  opinion.  But  admitting  this  opinion 
to  be  well  founded  ;  admitting  that  a  person  non-Episcopally 
baptized  has  not  received  regular  Christian  baptism ;  he  is 
not,  therefore,  absolutely  disqualified  from  holding  a  minis- 
terial commission. 

The  only  thing  absolutely  essential  in  the  office  of  a  minis- 
ter, is  a  valid  commission.  ^'  He  must  be  called  of  God  as 
was  Aaron."  Literary,  theological,  religious  and  moral 
qualifications,  though  necessary  to  the  correct,  respectable 
and  successful  discharge  of  the  ministry,  are  not  essential  to 
the  validity  of  its  acts.  Judas  was  an  Apostle,  though  he 
was  "  a  traitor  and  had  a  devil."  "  Sacraments  received  by 
faith,  and  rightly,  are  effectual,  because  of  Christ's  institution 
and  promise,  although  they  be  ministered  by  evil  men."* 
The  contrary  principle  would  throw  the  church  into  perpetu- 
al disorder,  and  agitate  the  breast  of  Christians  with  constant 
uncertainty  and  fears.  No  man  can  penetrate  the  heart.  If 
genuine  piety,  therefore,  be  necessary  to  the  validity  of  min- 
isterial acts.  Christians  can  never  be  absolutely  certain  that 
the  sacraments  they  receive  are  valid.  The  acts  of  a  wicked 
magistrate,  the  decisions  of  a  corrupt  judge  are  valid,  because 
of  his  commission.  The  acts  of  an  unholy  minister  of  the 
church  are  valid,  for  the  same  reason,  because  of  his  commis- 
sion— "because  of  Christ's  institution  and  promise."  If, 
therefore,  the  "  unworthiness  of  a  minister"  does  not  nul- 
lify his  ministerial  acts,  neither  can  his  want  of  regular 
Christian  baptism :  for  it  will  not  surely  be  contended  that 
regular  Christian  baptism  is  more  necessary  to  the  ministry 
than  holiness  of  heart  and  life."| 

*  Article  twenty-sixth  of  the  Church  of  England. 

t  Besides,  a  person  may  be  ex  officio  member  of  a  body  into  which  he 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  143 

Presbyterians  are  as  much  interested  in  maintaining  this 
opinion  as  EpisopaHans.  Lay  baptism,  it  is  well  known,  has 
always  been  practised  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  was 
allowed  in  the  Church  of  England  for  some  time  after  the 
Reformation.  Is  it  not,  therefore,  highly  probable  that 
many  of  the  Reformers,  as  well  as  those  Presbj'^ters  of  the 
Church  of  England  whom  the  Presbyterian  Church  acknow- 
ledges as  ministers,  and  from  whom  she  derives  her  ministry, 
had  only  received  lay  baptism  ?  But  the  Presbyterian 
Church  declares,  that  ''  baptism  may  not  be  dispensed  by 
any  but  a  minister  of  the  word  lawfully  ordained."*  She 
ranks  the  ^'  lawful  calling  "  of  the  minister,  with  water  and  the 
name  of  the  Trinity^  which  are  essentials  of  baptism. "f  Many 
persons,  therefore,  may  have  been  ministers  in  Presbyterian 
churches  who  have  never  received  regular  Christian  bap- 
tism. J  Presbyterians  are  as  much  interested  as  Episcopalians 
in  maintaining,  that  "  a  lawful  calling,"  a  valid  commission  is 
alone  absolutely  essential  to  the  validity  of  ministerial  acts. 

Beware,  therefore,  sir,  how  you  rashly  aim  against  Episco- 
palians weapons  which  may  be  made  to  recoil  upon  yourself. 


LETTER   XI. 

Sir, 

I  HAVE  thus  stripped  Episcopacy  of  some  of  those  appen- 
dages, in  the  demolition  of  which  its  opponents  have  exerted 
all  their  powers,  through  the  vain  hope  that  these  demolished, 

has  not  been  introduced  in  the  ordinary  way;  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pres- 
dent  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. — Editok. 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  4. 

t  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxviii.  sect.  2. 

X  And  more  than  this,  doubts  have  been  suggested,  whether  Calvin 
ever  received  ordination.  It  is  said  that  Beza,  in  his  life  of  Calvin,  re- 
gards it  as  very  doubtful.  Here  then  is  a  knotty  point  worthy  of  the  ener- 
gies of  the  editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine.  Alas!  if  it  should  appear 
that  the  great  founder  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  was  only  a  Layman  ! 


144  hobart's  apology 

Episcopacy  itself  would  fall.  The  candid  reader,  however, 
will  perceive  that  these  are  only  appendages  of  Episcopacy, 
and  that  on  some  subordinate  points  Episcopalians  may  differ, 
while  they  agree  in  all  the  essentials. 

What  now,  sir,  becomes  of  the  assertion  that  there  are 
"  material  differences  among  Episcopalians  on  their  favourite 
theme  .?"*  Do  you  suppose  jonr  readers  weak  enough  to 
believe,  that  because  differences  subsist  among  Episcopalians 
on  some  subordinate  points,  they  cannot  agree  in  essential 
principles  ?  Are  there  no  common  and  essential  principles 
of  Calvinism,  because  many  important  differences  subsist 
among  the  various  sects  of  Calvinists  ;  high  Calvinists  and 
moderate  Calvinists,  Supra-lapsarians  and  Sub-lapsarians, 
Baxterians,  Hopkensians,  Antinomians  .^  Is  Calvinism  un- 
founded in  scripture,  because  there  are  confusion  and  mutual 
contradictions  among  Calvinists  "  when  they  attempt  to  found 
their  system  on  the  scriptures  ?"t  Never  triumph  that  some 
Episcopalians  rely,  in  support  of  their  system,  on  irrelevant 
passages  of  scripture,  when  Mr.  M'Leod,  before  your  eyes, 
endeavours  to  prove  the  divine  appointment  of  "  Presbyterial 
order"  from  the  text,  Rev.  iii.  22.  "He  that  hath  an  ear, 
let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches. "J 

The  essential  and  characteristic  principles  of  Episcopacy 
are — that  there  are  three  grades  of  ministers  instituted  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  ;  and  that  the  first  grade^  in  addition 
to  the  common  ministerial  powers,  possess  the  sole  power  of 
ordination,  with  the  right  of  exercising  supreme  authority  over 
the  congregations  and  ministers  who  ma}"  be  subject  to  them. 

Let  us  bring  these  principles  to  the  test  of  Scripture. 
Let  any  candid  man,  throwing  aside  preconceived  opinions, 
open  the  sacred  writings.  He  finds  that  from  the  first,  there 
have  been  three  grades  in  the  ministry.  Under  the  Jewish 
dispensation  there  were  the  High  Priest y  Priests,  and  Lemtes.^ 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  100.  f  p.  101. 

X  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  31. 

§  Considerable  ingennity  and  learning  has  sometimes  been  displayed  in 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  145 

When  Christ  appeared  to  establish  the  gospel  dispensation, 
there  were  subordinate  to  him  the  great  High  Priest  of  our 
profession,  the  Apostles^"^  and  the  seventy. '\  After  his  ascen- 
sion, we  find  the  ministry  constituted  under  the  three  grades 
of  Apostles^  Elders.,  or  Presbyter s^  sometimes  called  Bishops, 
and  Deacons.^  In  the  churches  which  the  Apostles  founded, 
we  still  discover  three  grades.  In  Ephesus  and  Crete  there 
were  Timothy  and  Titus y  Elders  or  Presbyters\\  sometimes  also 
called  Bishops,  and  Deacons.^ 

That  these  grades  were  distinct  and  subordinate,  and  that 
the  power  of  ordination  and  the  supreme  power  of  governing 
the  church  were  vested  in  the  first  grade,  are  as  plain  as 
scripture  facts  can  make  them.  It  will  be  conceded  that 
Christ,  while  on  earth,  and  not  the  Apostles  or  the  seventy, 
exercised  supreme  authority,  and  conferred  the  ministerial 
commission.  It  will  also  be  conceded  that  the  Apostles,  and 
not  the  Elders  or  Deacons,  exercised  the  powers  of  ordina- 
tion and  government.  And  the  candid  inquirer  who  opens 
the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  will  not  hesitate  to  pro- 
nounce that  they  were  the  supreme  governors  of  those  churches, 
and  succeeded  the  Apostles,  not  in  their  miraculous  and  pecu- 
liar powers  as  Apostles,  but  in  the  ordinary  powers  of  wdi- 
nation  and  government.    They  are  to  "  ordain  elders  in  every 

proving,  that  the  Christian  Church  was  formed  on  the  model  of  the  syna- 
gogue and  not  of  the  temple ;  and  that,  therefore,  there  being  three  orders 
in  the  Jewish  ministry  furnishes  no  presumption  that  there  would  be  the 
same  distinction  and  subordination  in  the  Christian  ministry.  The  chief 
support  of  this  opinion  is  a  fallacious  argument  founded  on  the  identity  of 
names  between  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  and  some  officers  of  the  syna- 
gogue. It  is  surely  highly  improbable  that  Christ  would  constitute  the 
ministry  of  his  gospel  on  the  model  of  the  synagogue,  which  was  only 
of  ^Mma7t  institution,  and  not  on  that  of  the  temple,  which  was  of  divine 
appointment — Episcopalians,  however,  lay  no  stress  on  arguments  from 
this  source.  The  constitution  of  the  Christian  ministry  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  only. 

*  Luke  vi.  12,  13.  f  Luke  x.  1.  f  Acts  xiv.  23. 

§  Acts  vi.  1  Tim.  iii.  S.       ||  1  Tim.  v.  1, 19.     Titus  i.  5. 

IT  1  Tim.  iii.  8. 

13 


146  hobart's  apology 

city  ;"*  they  are  "  to  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man  ;"t 
they  are  to  ^'  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting  ;"J 
"  against  an  Elder  they  are  not  to  receive  an  accusation,  but 
before  two  or  three,  witnesses  ;"§  "a  heretic"  they  are  to 
"  reject  after  the  first  and  second  admonition. "||  Would  not 
every  person  of  candour  and  common  sense  conclude  from 
this  language,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  succeeded  the  Apostles 
in  the  powers  of  ordaining  and  governing  the  church  ?  Would 
not  common  sense  revolt  at  the  supposition  that  they  were 
on  a  level  with  the  Elders  or  Presbyters,  whom  they  were 
to  ordain,  whom  they  were  to  rebuke,  whom  they  were  to 
judge  and  govern  ?  There  must  have  been  Elders  at  Ephe- 
sus  before  Timothy  was  sent  there.  At  least  five  years  -be- 
fore St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epistles  to  Timothy,  he  sent  from 
Miletus  to  Ephesus  for  "  the  elders  of  the  church. "TT  Would 
not  common  sense  then  reject  the  supposition  that  these 
Elders  possessed  the  power  of  ordination }  Why  should 
Timothy  be  sent  there  vested  with  this  power  ;  and  the  direc- 
tions concerning  the  exercise  of  it,  and  of  the  power  of 
governing  addressed  to  him,  and  no  mention  made  of  the 
Elders  or  Presbyters  possessing  these  powers  .''  If  they  had 
possessed  the  powers  of  ordination  and  government,  what 
need  could  there  have  been  that  Timothy  should  be  sent 
there  to  do  what  could  as  well  have  been  done  by  the  Elders 
themselves  .''  In  like  manner,  on  the  supposition  that  there 
were  Elders  at  Crete,  possessed  of  the  powers  of  ordination 
and  government,  why  should  Titus  be  sent  there  to  exercise 
these  powers  .''  And  if  there  were  no  Elders  before  St.  Paul 
left  Titus  there,  why  did  he  not  ordain  Elders,  and  vest  them 
with  the  powers  of  ordination  and  government,  instead  of 
vesting  them  in  Titus  ? 

While  our  Saviour  was  upon  earth,  there  were  subordinate 
to  him  the  great  High  Priest  of  our  profession,  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Seventy ;  and  he  alone  commissioned  to  the  ministry. 

*  Titus  i.  5.  t  1  Tim.  v.  22.  J  Titus  i.  5. 

^  1  Tim.  V.  19.  II  Titus  iii.  10.  IT  Acts  xx.  17. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  147 

After  his  ascension  three  grades  of  the  ministry  still  subsisted 
in  the  Apostles,  the  Elders  or  Presbyters,  and  the  Deacons  ; 
and  the  Apostles  alone  ordained.  These  facts  would  sanc- 
tion the  presumption  that  three  grades  of  the  ministry  would 
still  continue,  and  that  the  first  grade,  as  before,  would  exer- 
cise the  power  of  ordination.  And  scripture  testimony  proves 
that  in  Ephesus  and  Crete  there  were  Timothy  and  Titus 
the  superior  officers  of  those  churches,  the  Elders,  and  Dea- 
cons ;  and  that  Timothy  and  Titus  only  were  commissioned 
to  ordain.  'V-^  '    :.  <    /  k..(  jr  t,^.  '-  ,: .  ~.r-^       -./:.!    •       ' 

Here  then  are  palpable  facts,  level  to  the  comprehension 
of  every  one,  and  on  which  every  candid  inquirer  may  se- 
curely rest.  Ingenuity  may  obscure  or  pervert  them ;  but 
what  is  there  around  which  ingenuity  cannot  cast  the  shades 
of  perplexity  and  doubt  ? 

The  cardinal  principles  on  which  Episcopacy  rests  are  not 
only  established  by  the  sacred  writings,  but  are  acknowledged 
and  received  by  the  Standards  of  Doctrine  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian churches.  In  the  chain  of  reasoning  that  supports  Epis- 
copacy, the  first  principle  is,  that  they  who  minister  in  Christ's 
Church  must  have  an  external  commission.  Christ,  the  divine 
Head  of  the  Church,  is  the  source  of  all  power  in  it.  The 
ministers  of  his  Church,  as  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God, 
as  dispensers  of  his  word  and  sacraments,  as  ambassadors  of 
God,  can  act  only  from  a  divine  commission.  No  human 
power  can  authorize  a  man  to  act  in  the  name  of  God — "  He 
must  be  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron."*  The  adorable 
Saviour  of  men,  the  '^  word  made  flesh,"  entered  not  on 
his  priestly  office  until  he  was  solemnly  commissioned 
from  above.  If  then  the  Son  of  God,  in  whom  "dwelt  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead ;"  if  he  who  possessed  "  the  Spirit 
without  measure,"  "  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  an 
High  Priest,  but  he  that  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  my  Son, 
to-day  have  I  begotten  thee  ;"|  if  he  refrained  from  that 
priestly  office  to  which  he  was  from  all  eternity  called,  until 
*  Heb.  V.  4.  t  Heb.  v.  5. 


148  hobart's  apology 

the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a  voice  from 
heaven  conferred  on  him  an  external  commission^  how  impious 
in  a  frail  mortal  presuming  on  internal  gifts  and  graces  to  ex- 
ercise the  ministry,  until  authorized  by  an  external  call,  by  a 
divine  commission !  This  principle  of  the  necessitj^  of  an 
external  commission  to  the  ministry,  you,  sir,  will  not  con- 
trovert. The  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  declare 
that  none  but  ministers  of  the  word,  lawfully  ordained, 
have  authority  to  dispense  the  sacraments.*  The  necessity  of 
an  external  commission,  that  a  person  must  be  ordained  before 
he  can  be  a  lawful  minister,  is  a  principle  maintained  by  all 
sound  Presbyterians.  And  the  text  of  scripture  quoted  in 
support  of  it  is  that  relied  on  by  Episcopalians — "  No  man 
taketh  this  honour  to  himself  but  he  that  is  called  of  God  as 
was  Aaron." 

This  external  commission  for  the  ministry  must  be  confer- 
red by  those  who  have  received  authority,  by  regular  succes- 
sion, from  Christ,  the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  On  this 
point  there  can  be  no  dispute  between  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians.  Both  agree  that  the  power  of  ordination 
rests  with  those  with  whom  Christ  originally  placed  it. 
Christ  evidently  vested  the  power  of  ordination  not  in  the 
community i)f  Christians,  but  in  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors. "  As  my  Father  sent  me,  so  send  I  you.  Lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  This 
promise  of  Christ  evidently  ensures  a  ministry  continued  by 
succession  to  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Apostles,  and  not 
the  community  of  Christians,  exercised  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion. None  ministered  in  the  church  as  ordinary  officers'^ 
but  those  who  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  b}^  the  laying  on 
of  hands.     This  power  of  ordination,  of  setting  apart  to  the 

*  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxvii.  sect.  4,  and  the  scrip- 
ture proofs. 

f  Teaching  yfds  in  the  Apostolic  age  a  miraculous  gift,  and  may  have 
been  exercised  by  those  who  never  were  ordained.  But  in  the  present 
day  this  will  not  justify  any  Christian  in  assuming  the  ministerial  func- 
tion, unless  he  can  display  miraculous  gifts. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  149 

ministry,  of  conferring  the  ministerial  commission,  must  be 
derived  by  succession^  from  the  great  head  of  the  Church, 
the  only  source  of  authority.  The  man  who  claims,  in  any 
other  way  than  by  succession ^  this  power  of  ordination,  can 
make  good  his  claim,  and  justify  it  from  the  charge  of  usur- 
pation, only  by  exhibiting  miraculous  gifts,  which  alone  are 
the  proofs  of  an  immediate  commission  from  heaven. 

This  doctrine  then,  of  a  regular  conveyance  of  the  power 
of  ordination  by  uninterrupted  succession  from  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  is  as  necessary  to  the  support  of  Presbyterian  as  of 
Episcopal  principles.  The  real  difference  between  Episco- 
palians and  Presbyterians  is,  not  as  to  the  conveyance  of  the 
power  of  ordination  by  succession,  but  as  to  the  particular 
grade  of  ministers  through  which  the  line  of  succession  is  to 
be  traced ;  whether  through  Bishops  or  Presbyters.  The 
doctrine  of  succession  was  maintained  in  England  by  the 
Presbyterian  divines  against  the  Independents;  and  is  still 
asserted  by  all  real  and  consistent  Presbyterians* 

Whatever  ridicule  may  be  cast  on  the  doctrine  of  uninter- 
rupted succession,  Presbyterians  as  well  as  Episcopalians 
should  cling  to  it  as  the  sheet  anchor  that  is  to  prevent  the 
church  from  being  overwhelmed  by  secular  encroachment. 
It  is  the  only  rampart  against  those  assaults  of  self-consti- 
tuted teachers,  which  would  strip  the  church  of  her  divine 
authority,  shake  her  from  her  foundation  on  the  Rock  of 
ages,  and  place  her  on  the  tottering  basis  of  popular  caprice, 
of  human  authority.     Equally  interested  with  myself,  sir,  in 

*  It  is  ably  vindicated  by  the  ingenious  Dr.  Lathrop,  of  Springfield, 
(Massachusetts)  in  two  discourses,  entitled,  "  Christ's  Warning  to  the 
Churches,"  &c.  His  reasoning  on  the  subject  appears  in  the  "  Collec- 
tion of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,"  (p.  95.)  This  doctrine  of  succession  is 
maintained  by  Mr.  M'Leod,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  (p.  28.) 
"  Christ  has  promised  his  presence  with  his  ministers,  continued  to  the 
end  of  the  world  by  succession."  And  Mr.  M'Leod  deserves  credit  for 
quoting,  in  proof  of  this  doctrine,  a  text  which  is  strictly  to  the  point — 
"  Lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  Matt, 
xxviii.  20. 

13* 


150 

maintaining  this  doctrine,  I  trust  you  will  peruse  with  satis- 
faction the  pungent  and  irrefragable  reasoning  by  which  the 
celebrated  Law  defends  it  in  his  ''  first  letter  to  the  Bishop 
of  Bangor."*  "If  there  be  not  a  succession  of  persons 
authorized  from  Christ  to  send  others  to  act  in  his  name, 
then  both  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  teachers  are  equally 
usurpers,  and  as  mere  laymen  as  an}''  at  all.  For  there  can- 
not be  any  other  difference  between  the  clergy  and  laity, 
but  as  the  one  hath  authority  derived  from  Christ,  to  per- 
form offices,  which  the  other  hath  not.  But  this  authority 
can  be  no  otherwise  had,  than  by  an  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion of  men  from  Christ,  empowered  to  qualify  others.  For 
if  the  succession  be  once  broke,  people  must  either  go  into 
the  ministry  of  their  own  accord,  or  be  sent  by  such  as 
have  no  more  power  to  send  others  than  to  go  themselves. 
And,  my  Lord,  can  these  be  called  ministers  of  Christ,  or 
received  as  his  ambassadors  .''  Can  they  be  thought  to  act 
in  his  name,  who  have  no  authority  from  him  ?  If  so,  your 
lordship's  servant  might  ordain  and  baptize  to  as  much  pur- 
pose as  your  lordship  :  for  it  could  only  be  objected  to  such 
actions,  that  they  had  no  authority  from  Christ.  And  if 
there  be  no  succession  of  ordainers  from  hi^,  every  one  is 
equally  qualified  to  ordain.  My  Lord,  I  should  think  it 
might  be  granted  me,  that  the  administering  of  a  sacrament 
is  an  action  we  have  no  right  to  perform,  considered  either 
as  men,  gentlemen,  or  scholars,  or  members  of  a  civil  socie- 
ty :  who  then  can  have  any  authority  to  interpose,  but  he 
that  has  it  from  t^hrist  ?  and  how  that  can  be  had  from  him 
without  a  succession  of  men  from  him,  is  not  easily  con- 
ceived. 

*  Law  addressed  "  three  letters"  to  the  Bishop  of  Bangor,  in  defence 
of  church  authority,  which  are  republished  in  the  V  Scholar  Armed." 
There  is  not  an  objection  which  ingenuity  can  raise  against  church  autho- 
rity in  general,  and  particularly  against  the  various  principles  of  Episco- 
pacy, which  is  not  refuted  in  these  letters.  As  a  specimen  of  keen,  yet 
delicate  satire,  of  perspicuous,  forcible,  and  profound  reasoning,  they 
stand  unrivalled. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  151 

"  It  is  a  plain  and  obvious  truth,  that  no  man,  or  num- 
ber of  men,  considered  as  such,  can  any  more  make  a  priest, 
or  commission  a  person  to  officiate  in  Christ's  name,  as  such, 
than  he  can  enlarge  the  means  of  grace,  or  add  a  new  sacra- 
ment for  the  conveyance  of  spiritual  advantages.  The  min- 
isters of  Christ  are  as  much  positive  ordinances  as  the  sacra- 
ments ;  and  we  might  as  well  think,  that  sacraments  not 
instituted  by  him,  might  be  means  of  grace,  as  those  pass  for 
his  ministers  who  have  no  authority  from  him. 

"  Once  more,  all  things  are  either  in  common  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,  or  they  are  not :  if  they  are,  then  every 
one  may  preach,  baptize,  ordain,  &c.  If  all  things  are  not 
thus  common,  but  the  administering  of  the  sacraments  and 
ordination,  &c.  are  offices  appropriated  to  particular  persons ; 
then  I  desire  to  know,  how,  in  this  present  age,  or  any  other 
since  the  Apostles,  Christians  can  know  their  respective  du- 
ties, or  what  they  may  or  may  not  do,  with  respect  to  the 
several  acts  of  church-communion,  if  there  be  no  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  authorized  persons  from  Christ :  for  till 
authority  from  Christ  appears,  to  make  a  difference  between 
them,  we  are  all  alike,  and  any  one  may  officiate  as  well 
as  another.  To  make  a  jest  therefore  of  the  uninterrupted 
succession,  is  to  make  a  jest  of  ordination,  to  destroy  the  sa- 
cred character,  and  make  all  pretenders  to  it  as  good  as 
those  that  are  sent  by  Christ. 

"  If  there  be  no  uninterrupted  succession,  then  there  are 
no  authorized  ministers  from  Christ ;  if  no  such  ministers, 
then  no  Christian  sacraments  ;  if  no  Christian  sacraments, 
then  no  Christian  covenant,  whereof  the  sacraments  are  the 
stated  and  visible  seals. 

"  There  is  an  absolute  necessity  of  a  strict  succession  of 
authorized  ordainers  from  the  apostolical  times,  in  order  to 
constitute  a  Christian  priest.  For  since  a  commission  from 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  necessary  for  the  exercise  of  this  office,  no 
one  now  can  receive  it,  but  from  those  who  have  derived 
their  authority  in  a  true  succession  from  the  Apostles. 


162  hobart's  apology 

"  The  clergy  have  their  commission  from  the  Holy  Ghost : 
the  power  of  conferring  this  commission  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  left  with  the  Apostles  :  therefore  the  present  clergy  can- 
not have  the  same  commission,  or  call,  but  from  an  order  of 
men  who  have  successively  conveyed  his  power  from  the 
Apostles  to  the  present  time.  So  that,  my  lord,  I  shall  beg 
leave  to  lay  it  down  as  a  plain,  undeniable.  Christian  truth, 
that  the  order  of  the  clergy  is  an  order  of  as  necessary  obli- 
gation as  the  sacraments,  and  as  unalterable  as  the  holy  scrip- 
tures ;  the  same  Holy  Ghost  being  as  truly  the  author  and 
founder  of  the  priesthood,  as  the  institutor  of  the  sacraments, 
or  the  inspirer  of  those  divine  oracles." 

The  doctrine  then,  of  "  the  presence  of  Christ  with  his  mi- 
nisters, continued  to  the  end  of  the  world  by  succession  ;"  of 
the  power  of  ordination  thus  successively  transmitted  in  the 
church  to  the  end  of  the  world,  is  a  doctrine  common  to  Pres- 
byterians and  Episcopalians,  and  essential  to  the  existence  of 
the  Christian  ministry.*  The  point  of  difference  is,  whether 
all  ministers  are  on  a  level  and  empowered  by  succession  to 
ordain ;  or  whether  there  is  not  a  grade  of  ministers  superior 
to  Presbyters,  and  now  called  Bishops,  who  alone  receive  in 
succession  the  power  of  ordination^  of  conveying  the  ministe- 
rial commission.  Tn  other  words — Is  Episcopal  or  Presbyte- 
rian ordination  valid  }  The  validity  of  the  former  is  not  com- 
patible with  an  acknowledgment  of  the  validity  of  the  latter. 
For  it  is  evident  that  if  a  grade  of  ministers,  now  called  Bi- 
shops, and  superior  to  Presbyters,  were  constituted  to  convey 
in  succession  the  ministerial  commission,  to  exercise  in  suc- 
cession the  power  of  ordination^  this  power  must  remain 
exclusively  with  them,  until  they  are  deprived  of  it  by  the 
same  divine  authority  whence  they  derived  it.  The  people 
may  with  the  same  propriety  wrest  the  power  of  ordination 

*  In  the  second  number  of  the  Christian's  Magazine  you  come  forth, 
as  I  expected,  a  consistent  Presbyterian  ;  and  maintain  that  the  doctrine 
of  uninterrupted  succession  is  as  essential  to  Presbyterians  as  Episcopa- 
lians.    We  differ  on  many  points.    I  am  happy  to  find  that  on  some  we 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  153 

from  the  Presbyters  with  whom  you  contend  it  is  placed, 
as  the  Presbyters  may  from  the  Bishops,  if  originally  vested 
in  them. 

With  whomsoever  then  this  power  of  ordination  was  depo- 
sited, with  Presbyters,  or  with  a  superior  grade  of  church 
officers,  with  them  it  must  remain,  until  divine  authority 
changes  the  deposit,  and  places  it  in  other  hands.  That  the 
power  of  ordination  was  in  the  first  instance  vested  in  the 
Apostles,  is  a  position  which  can  occasion  no  difference  of 
opinion  between  us.  With  whom  did  the  Apostles  vest  this 
power,  is  the  fundamental  point,  the  hinge  on  which  the 
whole  subject  turns.  Let  us  appeal  to  the  Epistles  to  Timo- 
thy and  Titus,  whom  the  Apostle  Paul  placed  in  the  churches 
at  Ephesus  and  Crete.  In  these  churches  there  were  cer- 
tainly both  Elders  or  Presbyters,  and  Deacons.  In  Ephesus 
there  were  Elders  before  St.  Paul  sent  Timothy  to  that  city  j* 
and  it  is  highly  improbable  that  the  gospel  should  have  been 
preached  in  the  extensive  island  of  Crete,  and  no  Elders  left 
there  by  St.  Paul  to  minister  in  the  churches.  Elders  and 
Deacons  are  frequently  named  in  these  Epistles.  Now,  did 
these  Elders  and  Deacons  possess  the  power  of  ordination  } 
We  find  not  the  shadow  of  evidence  of  their  exercising  this 
power,  or  of  its  being  entrusted  to  them.  On  the  contrary, 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  sent  to  the  churches  for  the  express 
purpose  of  exercising  the  power  of  ordination,  of  "  ordaining 
Elders  in  every  city."|  No  persons  are  spoken  of  as  vested 
with  this  power  but  Timothy  and  Titus  ;  and  to  them  alone 
are  directions  given  for  the  exercise  of  it.  Would  special 
messengers  be  sent  to  any  place  to  exercise  a  power  already 
in  the  hands  of  numbers  adequate  to  the  purpose  }  J     If  the 

*  Acts  XX.  17.  t  Titus  i.  5. 

X  That  there  were  Elders  in  Ephesus  before  St.  Paul  sent  Timothy 
there  will  not  admit  of  doubt.  It  is  possible  there  were  not  Elders  in 
Crete  when  Titus  was  sent  there.  But  then  the  difficulty  is,  Why  did 
not  St.  Paul  ordain  Elders  himself  when  he  was  in  Crete,  and  vest  them 
with  the  power  of  ordination  ?  His  not  doing  so,  and  his  sending  Titus 
vested  with  this  power,  without  the  most  distant  hints,  that  the  Elders 


154  hobart's  apology 

second  grade  of  the  ministry,  called  in  scripture  Elders,  or 
Presbyters,  and  sometimes  Bishops,  had  possessed  the  power 
of  ordination,  is  it  not  extraordinary  that,  in  the  enumeration 
of  their  powers  and  duties  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  this  power  should  not  have  been  enumerated  ?  If 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  superior  to  the  Elders  of  Ephe- 
sus  and  Crete,  is  it  not  extraordinary  that  the  Apostle  should 
address  them  in  language,  and  vest  them  with  powers,  evi- 
dently denoting  a  superiority  ;  that  he  should  give  them  such 
directions  concerning  the  ordaining,  governing,  and  judging  of 
the  Elders  and  Deacons,  as  would  lead  obviously  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  alone  were  the  depositories  of  these  powers  ? 
Is  it  not  extraordinary  that  he  should  expressly  vest  the 
power  of  ordination  in  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  never  once 
hint  at  the  association  of  the  Elders  with  them  in  the  exercise 
of  it,  never  once  allude  to  this  power  as  one  of  the  functions 
of  Elders  or  Presbyters  ? 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  support  the  claim  of  Presby- 
ters to  ordain,  from  the  address  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy, 
"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee 
by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Preshy- 
tery^  And  has  then  the  right  of  Presbyters  to  ordain  no 
other  support  than  the  contemptible  sophistry  of  names  ?* 
Who  knows  that  the  Presbytery  referred  to  by  the  Apostle 
was  a  council  of  those  whom  we  now  call  Presbyters  ? 
Presbytery '\  literally  signifies  an  assembly  of  old  men.     In  an 

possessed  it,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  it  was  a  power  peculiar  to  Titus 
as  a  superior  officer. 

*  I  am  lost  in  amazement  at  finding  in  the  second  number  of  the  Chris- 
tian's Magazine,  that  you  adopt  and  defend  this  argument  from  names. 
This  amazement  is  excited  neither  by  the  novelty  nor  ingenuity  of  your 
remarks,  but  by  your  temerity  in  thus  hazarding  your  cause  and  your  own 
reputation.  I  shall  pay  my  respects  to  you  on  this  subject  before  I  con- 
clude these  letters;  and  feel  myself  perfectly  secure  in  the  assertion, 
that  I  shall  be  able  to  prove  that  even  Dr.  M.  with  all  his  caution,  some- 
times permits  his  "  zeal  to  outstrip  his  prudence;"  and  with  all  his  vigi- 
lance, sometimes  "  nods." 

t  n/3fi(r/?vTe/)tov,  from  irpeaPvi,  an  old  man. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  155 

ecclesiastical  sense  it  denotes  an  assembly  of  church  officers. 
It  cannot,  therefore,  denote  exclusively  those  whom  we  now 
call  Presbj^ters ;  but  may  very  properly  be  applied  to  a  coun- 
cil of  Apostles  and  church""o2icers  superior  to  Elders  or  Pres- 
byters. It  is  undoubted  that  the  Apostles,  who  certainly 
were  superior  to  Presbyters,  were  sometimes  denominated 
Presbyters.  Peter  called  himself  an  Elder  or  Presbyter  (1 
Pet.  V.  1.)  And  so  does  St.  John  (2  John  i.  1.  3  John  1.)* 
Why  then  may  not  the  Apostles^  collectiyely,  be  styled  a 
Presbytery  ^  This  application  of  it  is  maintained  by  the  prin- 
cipal ancient  commentators.  It  is  incredible  that  the  Presby- 
tery here  meant  should  be  a  council  of  the  grade  of  church 
officers,  who  are  called  in  these  epistles  Elders  or  Presby- 
ters. For  then  the  absurdity  results  that  Timothy  was  or- 
dained by  a  council  of  the  very  men  whom  he  was  sent  to 
ordain  and  to  govern !  It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  who- 
ever the  Presbytery  were,  St.  Paul  was  himself  the  chief 
agent,  the  actual  ordainer  of  Timothy ;  he  alone  conveyed 
the  ministerial  authority. "f  For  he  expressly  enjoins  Timo- 
thy, "  Stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  put- 
ting on  of  my  hands."  The  Presbytery,  whosoever  they 
were,  only  associated  with  him  as  concurring  in  the  work.  J 

*  In  the  original  irpecTpvrepos,  Presbyter. 

t  This  is  Calvin's  opinion.  He  maintains  that  Paul  alone  ordained 
T  Jiothy,  and  quotes  the  text  2  Tim.  i.  6.  "Stir  up  the  gift  of  God 
-which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  Cal.  Inst.  lib.  iv. 
cap.  iii.  16. 

X  Where  the  Presbytery  is  named  (1  Tim.  iv.  14.,)  the  preposition  of 
concurrence,  ^usra,  is  used.  Where  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  St. 
Paul  is  mentioned  (2  Tim.  i.  6,)  the  preposition  6ia,  denoting  the  effi- 
cient or  instrumental  cause,  is  used.  This  distinctive  force  of  the  two 
prepositions,  Sia  and  ^isTa,  was  denied  by  the  author  of  Miscellanies. 
The  general  and  appropriate  signification  of  these  prepositions  is  cer- 
tainly the  following.  "  Aia,  with  the  genitive,  signifies  per,  denoting 
a  cau»e  of  almost  any  kind,  particularly  the  efficient  or  instrumental 
cause."  "  Mcra,  with  the  genitive,  denotes  with, together  with"  Now, 
be  it  remembered,  that  where  the  agency  of  St.  Paul,  in  the  ordination 
of  Timothy,  is  mentioned,  the  preposition  6ia  is  used  governing  the  geni- 


166  hobart's  apology 

When  pressed  hard  with  the  evident  facts  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  superior  officers  vested  with  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  government,  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy 
urge — Timothy  and  Titus  were  Evangelists,  they  were  ex- 
traordinary officers,  and  the  superior  powers  vested  in  them 
were  to  cease  in  their  persons  !  On  this  supposition  then 
the  power  of  ordination  ceases  in  them,  for  there  is  not  the 
shadow  of  evidence  that  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  of  Ephesus 
and  Crete  possessed  this  power.  The  Independents,  who 
maintained  that  there  is  no  power  of  ordination  conveyed  by 
succession  to  any  ministers,  but  that  it  is  vested  in  the  great 
body  of  Christians,  availed  themselves  of  this  very  argument 
against  the  Presbyterians.  When  the  Presbyterians  con- 
tended that  Presbyters  possessed  the  power  of  ordination, 
because  Timothy  and  Titus,  whom  they  considered  as  no 
more  than  Presbyters,  exercised  this  power,  the  Independents 
replied,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  Evangelists^  were  ex- 
traordinary officers,  and  no  arguments  concerning  the  powers 
of  Presbyters  are  to  be  drawn  from  their  case.  Let  Presby- 
terians beware  then,  lest,  in  demolishing  Episcopacy,  they 
furnish  the  Independents  with  weapons  to  destroy  Presbytery. 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  indeed  Evangelists.  But  what  in- 
separable connection  was  there  between  their  duty  as  Evan- 
gelists to  proclaim  the  gospel,  and  the  power  of  ordination 
vested  in  them,  so  that  when  the  former  ceased,  the  latter 
ceased  also  }  Their  being  Evangelists  was  an  adventitious 
circumstance,  no  way  necessary  to  the  existence  of  their 
ordinary  powers.     Prove  that  the  powers  of  Timothy  and 

tive.  St.  Paulj  therefore,  was  the  efficient  or  instrumental  agent  in  the 
ordination.  When  the  agency  of  the  Presbytery  is  mentioned,  the  prepo- 
sition fiCTa  is  used  governing  the  genitive.  Of  course,  the  Presbytery, 
whether  a  council  of  Apostles  or  of  Presbyters,  properly  so  called,  only 
concurred  with,  together  with,  St.  Paul.  He  actually  conveyed  ministe- 
rial authority.  They  assented,  concurred  in  this  act.  What  now  be- 
comes of  Mr.  M'Leod's  assertion  ?  "  There  is  not  an  instance  in  the 
whole  Bible,  of  imposition  of  hands  as  a  token  of  assent."  Eccl.  Cat. 
p.  112. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  157 

Titus  ceased,  because  they  were  Evangelists,  and  it  will  be 
easy  to  prove  that  there  are  no  ministers  in  the  Christian 
church  ;  for  Presbyters  and  Deacons  were  Evangelists  as  well 
as  Timothy  and  Titus. 

The  book  of  Revelations  affords  additional  proof  that  in 
every  church  there  was  a  superior  officer,  corresponding  to 
him  whom  we  now  call  Bishop,  who  was  vested  with  supreme 
power  in  the  church. 

St.  John  introduces  our  Lord  addressing  seven  Epistles  to 
the  seven  Angels  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.  The  Epistles 
could  not  have  been  addressed  to  the  collective  body  of 
Christians  in  the  churches ;  for  they  are  designated  by  the 
seven  candlesticks^  which  are  distinguished  from  the  seven 
starSy  by  which  the  Angels  are  denoted.  The  Angels  were 
evidently  single  persons.  They  are  uniformly  addressed  as 
.such.  The  supposition  that  by  way  of^^wre,  the  whole  body 
of  the  ministry  of  these  churches  is  addressed  under  the  de- 
nomination of  an  Angel  is  without  foundation.*  It  is  pre- 
dicated on  what  cannot  be  proved,  that  the  ministers  in  those 
churches  were  united  into  one  body,  called  a  Presbytery. 
The  titles  of  Angels  and  stars  in  the  book  of  Revelations  are 
never  thus  figuratively  applied  to  a  collective  body  of  men, 
but  always  denote  single  persons. f  And  we  are  confirmed 
in  the  natural  and  obvious  opinion  that  they  were  single  per- 
sons by  the  concurring  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  writers, 
that  Bishops  were  settled  in  these  churches  about  the  period 
that  these  Epistles  were  written.  The  Angels  of  these 
churches  then  were  single  persons  "  And  it  is  beyond  doubt 
that  they  were  vested  with  superior  and  supreme  power  in 
those  churches  ;  for  they  are  commended  or  reproved  for  the 

*  This  hypothesis  of  Mr.  M'Leod,  advanced  originally  by  some  English 
Dissenters,  called  the  "  Smectymnuan  Divines,"  is  disclaimed  by  many 
of  the  most  learned  advocates  of  Presbytery,  Beza^  Blondel,  and  others, 
who  agree  with  Dr.  Campbell,  that  the  Angels  in  the  Revelations  were 
single  persons,  vested  with  supremacy  in  those  churches. 

t  Rev.  ii.  28.  xii.  1.  xxi.  12,  14. 

14 


'^ 7i^  fa^Ly- 


158  hobart's  apology 

excellencies  or  the  faults  of  these  churches,  for  which,  as 
supreme  governors^  they  were  responsible. 

But,  we  are  told,  there  is  no  express  precept  in  scripture 
for  Episcopacy.  The  distinction  and  subordination  of  the 
grades  of  the  ministry,  and  the  appropriation  of  the  power 
of  ordination  to  the  first  grade,  are  founded  only  on  Apos- 
tolical practice  2ind.  institution;  and  these  are  inferior  in  obli- 
gation to  divine  authority.  Express  precept  alone  can  be 
admitted  as  evidence  of  divine  institution. 

But  this  argument  operates  with  equal  force  against  Pres- 
bytery and  Episcopacy.  The  advocates  of  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  Presbytery  can  appeal  only  to  Apostolic  practice  or 
institution.  Viewing  you  as  a  genuine  and  consistent  Pres- 
byterian, I  am  persuaded  you  will  candidly  confess  that  Pres- 
bytery must  be  maintained  by  the  same  species  of  evidence 
which  is  urged  in  support  of  Episcopacy.  All  the  advocates 
of  the  divine  right  of  Presbytery  argue  from  Apostolic  prac- 
tice; and  maintain  that  on  this  point.  Apostolic  practice  and 
institution  is  evidence  of  divine  right.* 

If  the  broad  principle  be  admitted,  that  express  precept 
only,  and  not  Apostolic  practice  is  conclusive  evidence  of 
divine  right,  by  what  proof  shall  we  establish  the  divine  in- 
stitution of  the  first  day  Sabbath^  and  the  divine  authority  of 
infant  baptism  ?  The  Apostles  acted  under  divine  inspiration. 
Those  institutions y  therefore,  which  they  settled,  and  which 
are  not  obviously  of  a  local  and  temporary  nature,  are  autho- 
rized by  that  divine  Spirit  under  which  they  acted,  and  are 
to  be  reverenced  and  obeyed  as  from   God.     The  contrary 

*  Mr.  M'Leod,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism  (p.  102)  expressly  as- 
serts— "  That  certain  external  model  of  government,  which  was  origi- 
nally adopted  for  the  preservation  of  the  evangelical  doctrines  and  insti- 
tutions, and  for  the  careful  transmission  of  them  to  after  ages,  is  of  divine 
authority."  And  again  (p.  17,)  "  Whatever  is  supported  by  opproved 
examples — is  of  divine  right."  In  these  principles  he  follows  the  West- 
minster Assembly  of  Divines,  who  maintained  against  the  Independents 
the  divine  right  of  Presbytery,  from  scripture  examples,  from  Apostolic 
practice. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  159 

principle  cuts  up  by  the  roots  evangelical  doctrine,  and  shakes 
to  its  foundation  the  Christian  church. 

But  are  all  Apostolic  practices  equally  important  and  ob- 
hgatory.^  Certainly  not.  How  then  do  we  distinguish 
those  Apostolic  practices  which  were  intended  to  last  and  to 
be  unchangeable  J  from  those  which  were  temporary  and 
mutable  ?  We  can  determine  instantly,  from  the  nature  of 
those  practices,  whether  they  were  local  and  temporary,  or 
of  general  and  permanent  observance.  The  love-feasts,  the 
kiss  of  charity,  the  Deaconesses  who  were  to  attend  on 
women  in  baptism,  were  Apostolic  practices  evidently  of 
inferior  moment,  proper  and  necessary  only  under  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  church,  and  laid  aside  when  those  cir- 
cumstances changed.  But  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  in 
settling  the  Christian  ministry  is  of  the  first  importance,  and 
of  permanent  obligation.  The  Christian  ministrj'  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  church.  The  Apostles  were  to 
institute  a  ministry  which  was  to  continue  by  succession  "  to 
the  end  of  the  world."  We  have  the  same  right  to  change 
the  sacraments,  and  to  pretend  that  they  are  temporary  and 
mutable,  as  we  have  to  change  the  constitution  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  as  settled  by  Apostolic  practice.  Here  the 
institutions  of  the  Apostles  must  be  gathered  from  their 
practice,  from  their  authoritative  acts.  The  ministry  is  of 
divine  authority,  and  rests  solely  on  a  divine  commission.  * 
This  commission  must  be  derived  from  Christ,  the  source  of 
all  power  in  the  church,  by  a  succession  of  persons  authorized 
to  transmit  it.  In  no  other  way  can  it  be  derived.  Admit 
that  this  succession  has  been  interrupted ;  admit  that  the 
mode  of  transmitting  the  ministerial  commission  may  be 
changed,  may  be  placed  in  other  hands  than  those  in  whom 
the  Apostles  placed  it,  and  you  render  null  the  promise  of 
Christ,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world."      You  suffer  the  gates  of  hell  to  prevail  against  the 

*  "  No  man  taketh  this  honour  to  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of  God 
as  was  Aaron."     Heb.  v,  4. 


160  hobart's  apology 

church  :  for  you  wrest  from  it  its  divine  character  ;  you 
make  its  ministers  and  its  sacraments  human  officers  and 
human  ordinances.  Quenched  its  life-blood,  the  power  of 
Christ,  it  becomes  a  lifeless  trunk.  You  have  severed  it 
from  its  divine  Head,  from  which  it  derives  spiritual  growth 
and  nourishment.  The  connection  between  the  visible  church 
and  the  "  Lord  of  all,"  can  only  be  kept  up  by  a  visible 
ministry,  administering  visible  sacraments ;  and  this  ministry 
can  derive  its  authority  from  Christ  only,  in  that  mode  and 
order  originally  constituted. 

We  contend  not  then  that  Episcopacy  is  unchangeable, 
merely  because  it  is  the  original  form  of  government  settled 
by  Apostolic  practice.  The  most  important  ends  of  govern- 
ment, some  persons  maintain,  may  be  answered  nearly  as 
well  by  one  form  as  by  another ;  and  in  this  point  of  view 
they  think  there  may  be  force  in  the  observation, 

"  For  forms  of  government  let  fools  contest, 
That  which  is  best  administered  is  best." 

But  Episcopacy  is  unchangeable,  because  it  is  the  origi- 
nally constituted  mode  of  conveying  that  commission,  with- 
out which  there  can  be  no  visible  ministry,  no  visible  sacra- 
ments, no  visible  church.  The  power  of  ordination  must 
remain  with  the  first  grade  of  the  ministry,  now  called  Bishops, 
because  with  them  it  was  placed  by  the  Apostles  divinely 
commissioned  to  found  the  church,  to  constitute  its  min- 
istry, and  to  provide  for  the  continuance  of  this  ministry 
"  to  the  end  of  the  world."  Change  the  ministry  ;  place  the 
power  of  ordination  in  other  hands — the  church  is  no  longer 
founded  "  on  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self being  the  chief  corner  stone."  Its  constitution  and  min- 
istry have  no  power  but  what  man  gives  them.  It  rests  on 
the  sandy  foundation  of  human  authoiity.  When  "  the  floods 
come,  when  the  rains  descend,  when  the  winds  blow  and  beat 
upon  it,"  it  will  fall ;  for  it  is  not  founded  on  the  Rock  of 

AGES.  ""■^"      ■""  ' 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  161 


LETTER   XII. 

Sir, 

The  distinction  and  subordination  of  the  grades  of 
the  ministry,  and  the  appropriation  of  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion and  the  supreme  government  to  the  first  grade,  now  call- 
ed Bishops,  rest  upon  divine  authority^  displayed  in  the  insti- 
tution and  practice  of  the  Apostles. 

Apostolic  institution  and  practice,  thus  satisfactorily  proved 
from  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  affords  Episcopacy 
a  support  not  to  be  shaken  by  your  reasonings,  however 
plausible,  nor  by  your  assertions,  however  bold  and  positive. 

It  is  natural  on  this  subject  to  inquire,  what  was  the  prac- 
tice of  the  ages  immediately  succeeding  that  part  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  a  record  of  which  is  given  us  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  If  the  testimony  of  those  ages  prove  the  fact 
of  the  universal  prevalence  of  Episcopacj",  and  assign  no 
human  origin  to  it,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  it  must 
have  been  instituted  by  the  Apostles.  It  is  incredible  that 
the  Apostles  should  have  constituted  a  parity  in  the  ministry, 
established  Presbyterian  government,  and  yet  that  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  before  the  Apostles  were  scarcely  cold  in 
their  graves,  should  have  permitted  some  ambitious  prelates 
to  subvert  the  Apostolic  constitution  of  the  ministry,  and  to 
exalt  themselves  as  "lords  in  God's  heritage."  Such  a 
change  must  have  wanted  motive  ;  for  the  place  of  Bishops 
in  the  primitive  ages  was  peculiarly  the  place  of  dangers  and 
death.  Such  a  change  would  have  been  opposed  by  every 
principle  of  human  nature,  by  the  reverence  of  the  Presby- 
ters and  people  for  Apostolic  institutions,  by  a  laudable  desire 
to  maintain  their  own  rights,  and  by  that  high  "  spirit  of 
man,"  which  rises  up  against  oppression.  Such  a  change, 
we  may  safely  assert,  would  not  have  been  affected  without 
powerful  opposition.  The  records  of  those  ages  would  have 
marked  it  as  an  extraordinary  event  in  the  history  of  the 

14^ 


162  hobart's  apology 

church ;  would  have  exhibited  the  agitations  and  collisions 
to  which  it  must  have  given  rise.  The  comparatively 
trifling  controversy  concerning  the  day  on  which  the  festival 
of  Easter  was  to  be  observed,  threw  the  primitive  church 
into  tumult,  and  occasioned  a  schism  between  the  Eastern 
and  Western  churches.  This  controversy  is  a  subject  of 
particular  record.  Is  it  then  credible  that  the  Apostolic  con- 
stitution of  the  ministry  should  have  been  totally  changed 
soon  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  and  not  the  most 
remote  hint  of  such  a  change  to  be  met  with  in  any  eccle- 
siastical writings  for  near  four  hundred  years  } 

If  then  the  primitive  Fathers  are  not  only  silent  concern- 
ing this  change,  but  bear  explicit  testimony  to  the  universal 
prevalence  of  Episcopacy,  and  speak  of  it  as  universally  re- 
ceived on  the  ground  of  Apostolic  institution,  the  prejudice 
must  be  invincible  which  will  still  maintain  that  Presbytery 
was  the  original  institution,  and  Episcopacy  an  usurpation. 
We  use  the  Fathers  merely  as  credible  witnesses  to  matters 
of  fact,  in  regard  to  which  they  could  not  have  been  deceived. 
We  lay  no  stress  on  their  individual  testimony  ;  we  care  not 
for  their  erroneous  and  contradictory  opinions ;  it  is  only 
their  concurring  testimony  to  a  matter  of  fact ^  to  the  universal 
prevalence  of  Episcopacy,  on  which  we  lay  stress.  He  who 
rejects  their  testimony  on  this  subject,  strikes  at  the  root  of 
all  historical  evidence,  and  sweeps  with  the  besom  of  dark- 
ness the  history  of  past  ages.* 

I  mean  not  to  intrude  upon  you  the  series  of  evidence  from 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  which  demonstrates  the  distinc- 
tion and  subordination  of  the  three  grades  of  the  ministry, 
Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons.  This  evidence  is  to  be 
found  in  almost  every  book  which  has  been  written  upon  the 
subject.     It  has  been  exhibited,  with  admirable  perspicuity 

*  It  should  be  remarked  that  he  who  impugns  the  testimony  of  the 
apostolic  fathers  to  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  does  by  that  act 
destroy  the  only  evidence  for  the  canonical  authority  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament — Ed. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  163 

and  force,  by  the  eminent  divines  Potter  and  Leslie.  You 
will  pardon  me  if  I  think  that  whatever  may  be  the  preten- 
sions of  those  who  wish  to  swell  themselves  into  importance, 
and  to  extort  homage,  by  haughty  airs  and  bold  assertions, 
Potter  and  Leslie  were  at  least  equal  to  Dr  Mason  in  ex- 
tent and  depth  of  erudition,  in  critical  acumen,  in  strength 
of  reasoning,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  the  primitive  Fathers  * 
The  weight  of  the  primitive  evidence  in  support  of  Episco- 
pacy has  been  well  tried ;  its  accuracy  and  bearings  have 
been  thoroughly  scrutinized.  And  whatever  may  be  your 
affectation  of  originality,  were  you  ten  times  more  "  learned  " 
than  you  are,  and  the  humble  writer  who  addresses  you  as 
learned  as  yourself,  (incredibile  dictu  .')  we  should  neither  of 
us  be  able  to  adduce  one  argument  of  any  importance  on  this 
subject,  which  has  not,  in  some  shape  or  other,  been  advanced 
by  others. "f 

There  are,  however,  palpable  and  universally  acknowledged 
facts  which  demonstrate  that  the  Apostolic  and  primitive 
church  must  have  been  Episcopal.  You  cannot  open  an  ec- 
clesiastical writer,  either  of  the  present  or  primitive  age,  who 
does  not  stare  you  in  the  face  with  the  facts  that  there  were 
Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  in  the  primitive  church. 
Yes,  sir,  such  Bishops  as  we  have  in  modern  days,  with 
Presbyters  subject  to  them.  That  Ignatius  was  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  that  Cyprian  was  Bishop  of  Carthage,  are  facts 
just  as  well  established  as  that  these  holy  martyrs  lived — 

*  Archbishop  Potter  was  the  author  of  the  learned  work  on  the 
"  Antiquities  of  Greece ;"  and  Leslie  of  that  admirable  tract  entitled, 
"  A  Short  and  easy  Method  with  the  Deists."  The  tract  of  the  latter  in 
support  of  Episcopacy  is  republished  in  "  the  Scholar  Armed  ;"  and  the 
work  of  the  former  is  entitled,  "  A  Discourse  on  Church  Government." 
I  mention  this  for  the  sake  of  "  unlearned"  readers.  To  attempt  to  give 
any  information  on  these  points  to  Dr.  Mason,  I  am  aware  would  be  the 
highest  presumption. 

t  No  person  will  be  at  a  loss  to  justify  this  language,  who  considers  the 
sneering  contempt  with  which  the  Christian's  Magazine  treats  all  who 
axe  so  unfortunate  as  to  incur  its  displeasure. 


164  hobart's  apology 

established  bj"  the  testimony  of  the  very  same  writers  who 
are  adduced  to  prove  that  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  were  received  as  inspired  books.  The  most 
superficial  reader  of  ecclesiastical  history  is  familiar  with  the 
names  of  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  Cyprian,  Bishop 
of  Carthage.  The  church  in  those  cities  he  naturally  con- 
cludes must  have  consisted  of  several  congregations",  in 
which  there_must  have  been  Presbyters  to  officiate.  And 
as  Ignatius  and  Cyprian  are  styled  by  way  of  eminence  and 
exclusion^  Bishop  of  Antioch,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  he  of 
course  concludes  that  there  were  no  other  Bishops  in  those 
cities,  but  that  Ignatius  and  Cyprian  superintended  the 
church  in  them,  consisting  of  Presbyters  and  their  congrega- 
tions ;  in  other  words,  that  they  were  diocesan  Bishops. 
These  are  the  conclusions  which  every  reader  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal history,  who  is  not  biassed  to  some  preconceived  system, 
would  naturally  and  immediately  form. 

It  seems,  however,  that  the  sense  of  ecclesiastical  history- 
has  been  wholly  misrepresented.  The  language  of  all  eccle- 
siastical historians  has  been  inaccurate.  You  threaten  us 
that  you  will  be  able  to  prove  that  the  testimony  of  the  pri- 
mitive Fathers  has  been  misstated,  that  they  give  no  support 
to  Episcopacy  !  This  hold  language  gives  me  no  surprise. 
Nor  should  I  be  at  all  surprised,  were  you  to  go  a  little 
further,  and  assert  that  no  one  understands  the  primitive 
Fathers  but  yourself!  Very  modest  indeed!  Who  can 
avoid  being  charmed  with  this  unparalleled  humilitj'- }  The 
most  learned  men  that  ever  adorned  the  Christian  church, 
the  Hookers,  the  Bulls,  the  Pearsons,  the  Beveridges,  the 
Wakes,  the  Potters,  the  Chillingworths,  the  Leslies, 
and  "  a  legion  more,"  knew  nothing  of  the  primitive  Fathers ! 
The  glorj"  which  has  hitherto  surrounded  these  luminaries 
of  the  church,  is  to  fade  away  before  the  resistless  lustre  of 
those  beams  which  the  superior  learning  of  the  Editor  of 
the  Christian's  Magazine  is  to  shed  on  the  darkness  of  the 
primitive  age  I 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  165 

Over  these  feeble  men,  the  Hookers,  the  Bulls,  the 
Pearsons,  and  their  ^'  compeers,"  perhaps  you  may  tri- 
umph !  But  will  you  raise  the  arm  of  rebellion  against 
your  great  master,  Calvin  ?  Will  you  assert  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  that  he  has  misunderstood 
or  perverted  their  meaning  ?  I  have  nothing  to  do  here  with 
Calvin's  form  of  church  government,  or  with  the  arguments 
by  which  he  attempts  to  support  it  from  scripture.  I  merely 
adduce  his  judgment  as  to  a  matter  of  fact ^  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  primitive  church  as  exhibited  by  the  Fathers. 
Now,  Calvin,  in  the  fourth  book  of  his  institutions,  expressly 
admits  that  the  primitive  church  was  Episcopal,  that  there 
were  three  grades  of  the  ministry,  and  that  the  first  grade 
possessed  superior  powers. 

We  find  Calvin  asserting  the  superiority  of  Bishops  to 
Priests.  "  Therefore,  to  whom  the  office  of  teaching  was 
enjoined,  all  these  they  named  Priests.  In  every  city  they 
chose  out  of  their  own  number  one  man,  to  whom  they  spe- 
cially gave  the  title  of  Bishop ;  that  dissentions  should  not 
grow  of  equality,  as  it  is  wont  to  come  to  pass.  Yet  the 
Bishop  was  not  so  above  the  rest  in  honour  and  dignity,  that 
he  had  a  dominion  above  his  fellows."*  I  have  nothing  to  do 
with  Calvin's  opinion.^  that  this  superiority  or  precedence 
of  a  Bishop  over  Priests,  was  "  by  men's  consent  brought 
in  for  the  necessity  of  the  times ;"  or  with  his  authority  for 
this  opinion.  My  object  at  present  is,  only  to  prove  that 
he  admits  the  fact  that  there  was  such  a  superiority  in  the 
primitive  church.  He  distinguishes  Bishops  and  Priests 
as  two  distinct  grades  of  the  ministry.  "  But  so  much  as 
belongeth  to  the  office  whereof  we  now  speak,  as  well  the 
Bishops  as  the  Priests.,  were  bound  to  apply  the  distributing 
of  the  word  and  sacraments. "|  He  notices  this  distinction 
again  when  he  endeavours  to  prove  that  in  the  primitive 
church  (as  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America)  the  clergy 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  lib.  iv.  cap.  iv.  1. 
t  Calvin's  Institutes,  lib.  iv.  cap.  iv.  3. 


166  hobart's  apology 

and  people  chose  their  Bishop.  "  Let  him  be  chosen  (Bishop) 
whom  the  clergy  and  the  people,  or  the  greater  number  shall 
require."*  Here  he  makes  an  evident  distinction  between 
the  Bishop  and  the  clergy.  The  person  thus  chosen  Bishop 
by  the  clergy  and  the  people,  Calvin  asserts,  was,  in  the  pri- 
mitive church,  to  be  raised  to  this  superior  grade  hy  ordina- 
tion. "  There  remaineth  of  the  Nicene  Council,  that  the 
metropolitan  (the  chief  Bishop  of  the  province)  should  meet 
together  with  all  the  Bishops  of  the  province,  to  order  him 
who  is  chosen."!  According  to  Calvin  the  Bishops  in  the 
privitive  church  were  governors  of  the  clergy.  "  For  this 
end  to  every  Bishop  was  committed  the  government  of  his  own 
clergy,  that  the}^  should  rule  their  clerks  (their  clergy)  ac- 
cording  to  the  canons,  and  hold  them  to  their  duty. "J  Nay, 
that  according  to  the  judgment  of  Calvin  there  were  in  the 
primitive  church  the  three  grades  of  ministers.  Bishops^ 
Priests,  and  Deacons,  and  that  the  Bishop  exercised  the 
chief  power  in  ordaining,  is  indisputable  from  the  following 
passage:  "In  the  solemn  assembly  the  Bishops  had  a  certain 
apparel  whereby  they  might  be  distinctly  known  from  other 
Priests.  They  ordered  all  Priests  and  Deacons  with  only 
laying  on  of  hands.  But  every  Bishop,  with  the  compa- 
ny of  Priests,  ordained  his  own  Priest.  But  although  they 
did  all  the  same  thing  ;  yet  because  the  Bishop  went  be- 
fore, and  it  was  all  done  as  it  were  by  his  guiding,  there- 
fore the  ordering  was  called  his.  Whereupon  the  old 
writers  have  oft  this  saying ; — that  a  Priest  differeth  from 
a  Bishop  in  no  other  thing,  but  because  he  hath  not  the 
power  of  ordering.''"'^  Calvin's  testimony  in  this  passage 
to  a  matter  of  fact,  that  in  the  primitive  church,  "  every 
Bishop,  with  his  company  of  Priests,  ordained  his  own 
Priest ;"  and  that,  according  to  the  "  old  writers,"  "  a  Priest 
— hath  not  the  power  of  ordering,"  is  to  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  his  opinion  that  "  the  ordering  was  called  "  the 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  lib.  iv.  cap.  iv.  11.    f  Cap.  iv.  14.    t  Cap.  xii.  22. 
§  Calvin's  Institutes,  lib.  iv.  cap.  iv.  15. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  167 

Bishop's  merely  because  he  ^' went  before."  This  reason 
is  a  gloss  of  Calvin's,  for  which  he  brings  no  authority.  Let 
me  appeal  to  the  candid  whether  the  above  description  of  a 
primitive  ordination  does  not  answer  exactly  to  the  ordinations 
in  the  Episcopal  churches  of  the  present  day ;  and  whether 
it  bears  the  same  resemblance  to  Presbj'^terian  ordinations. 

But  perhaps  Calvin  has  been  describing  the  constitution 
of  the  church  after  it  had  become  corrupted  by  the  leaven  of 
Popery.  No,  sir,  the  above  passages  are  selected  from  a 
chapter  of  his  Institutes,  the  title  of  which  is,  "  Of  the  State 
of  the  Old  Church,  and  of  the  Manner  of  governing  that  was 
in  use  before  the  Papacy.''^  Nay,  in  introducing  this  account 
of  the  primitive  government,  he  observes,  "  It  shall  be  profit- 
able in  those  things  to  consider  the  /orw  of  the  old  church, 
which  shall  represent  to  our  minds  a  certain  image  of  God''s  in- 
stitution.''''  And  again,  "  The  Bishops  of  those  times — with  such 
heedfulness  framed  all  their  order  after  the  only  rule  of  God^s 
holy  ivord,  that  a  man  may  easily  see  that  in  this  point  they 
had  in  a  manner  nothing  disagreeing  from  the  word  of  God.* 
To  reconcile  Calvin's  form  of  church  government  with  the 
"form  of  the  old  church,"  as  represented  in  the  above  ex- 
tracts, maybe  a  difficult  task.  My  business  is  with  his  testi- 
mony as  above  stated,  and  not  with  his  theories  or  rea- 
sonings. 

Now,  Sir,  if  you  will  undertake  to  prove  that  the  primi- 
tive Fathers  knew  nothing  of  "the  distinction  of  superior 
and  inferior  clergy ;"'['  if  you  will  undertake  to  prove  that 
this  "  distinction,  under  whatever  form  or  pretext  adopted,  is 
unscriptural  and  anti-Christian  ;"J  if  you  will  undertake  to 
prove  that  in  the  primitive  ages  "  the  visible  unity  of  the 
church  was  preserved  by  ^^ perfect  equality  of  rank  among  mi- 
nisters,"§  I  only  say  you  will  have  serious  difficulties  to 
encounter — Hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est — Certainly  not  among  the 

*  Calvin's  Institutes,  lib.  iv.  cap.  iv.  1. 

t  Constitution  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  %  Ibid. 

§  Christian's  Magazine.     Introduction. 


168  hobart's  apology 

least  of  these  difficulties  will  be  the  authoritative  judgment 
of  the  "great  Calvin."  I  submit  to  the  serious  considera- 
tion of  those  who  embrace  the  Calvinistic  opinions,  whether 
the  judgment  of  Calvin,  the  great  master  of  theology,  or  that 
of  Dr.  M.  be  most  worthy  of  credit.  I  confess  the  dilemma 
in  which  they  are  placed  is  not  a  pleasant  one.  If  they  as- 
sert that  the  primive  church  was  not  Episcopal ;  if  they  re- 
fuse to  submit  to  a  primitive  "  hierarchy,"  they  oppose  the 
judgment  of  Calvin,  they  encounter  his  awful  "anathema." 
And  if  they  attempt  to  avoid  this  anathema,  they  will  be  met 
by  the  dread  denunciations  of  the  Editor  of  the  Christian'^s 
Magazine!     Scylla  and  Charybdis — "  Alas  !  alas  !  " 

But  the  triumph  of  Episcopalians  is  to  be  blasted  by  the 
bold  assertion,  that  the  primitive  constitution  of  the  church, 
as  thus  delineated  by  Calvin,  was  an  innovation  on  the 
Apostolic  form,  an  innovation  which  took  place  soon  after  the 
Apostolic  age.*  Now,  to  say  nothing  of  the  improbability 
of  this  fundamental  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
church ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  impracticability  of  a  few  ambi- 
tious "  prelates,"  thus  sweeping  away  the  institutions  of  the 
Apostles,  and  exalting  themselves  into  the  thrones  of  corrupt 
power  on  the  ruins  of  Apostolic  authority ;  to  say  nothing  of 
the  insuperable  difficulties  which  they  must  have  had  to  en- 
counter in  the  reverence  of  the  primitive  Christians  for  Apos- 
tolic institutions,  in  the  ardour  with  which  the  clergy  and 
people  would  have  maintained  their  rights  and  resisted  unhal- 
lowed usurpation  ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  humble,  holy,  and 
celestial  virtues  of  the  primitive  Bishops,  the  martjTS  to  the 
faith  of  Jesus,  which  forbid  the  imputing  to  them  motives 
and  objects  so  dishonourable  and  criminal,  we  may  at  least 
inquire.  Where  is  the  record  of  this  fundamental  change  .'* 
Where  the  irrefragable  proof  of  this  unparalleled  usurpation, 
which,  stripping  Presbyters  of  those  powers  which  but  a  few 
years  before  they  had  received  from  the  hands  of  the  Apos- 

*  The  most  learned  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  Blondel,  Salmasius, 
Chamier,  and  others,  fix  it  at  this  period. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  169 

ties  as  a  sacred  deposit,  made  them  bow  their  necks  under 
the  feet  of  usurping  "  lords  in  God's  heritage  ?"  We  are  at 
once  boldly  answered,  the  record  is  at  hand  !  In  fearful  anx- 
iety we  wait  for  it.  It  flashes  upon  us  in  "  the  famous  testi- 
mony of  Jerome."* 

And  who  was  Jerome  ?  Was  he  one  of  the  early  Fathers? 
Did  he  live  during  that  period  at  which  the  usurpations  of 
Episcopacy  were  effected  ?  No,  near  three  hundred  years 
after.  The  alleged  usurpation  of  Episcopacy  took  place,  ac-  jj 
cording  to  Blondel,  about  forty  years  after  the  death  of  the  *  Jq^ 
Apostles  ;  and  Jerome  flourished  near  the  close  of  the  fourth  /u  ^ 
century.t  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin  Martyr,  Tertul- 
LiAN,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  say  nothing  of  this 
wonderful  revolution.  Origen  and  Cyprian,  who  lived  in  the 
third  century,  had  not  found  out  that  the  superiority  of  Bi- 
shops over  Presbyters^  to  which,  with  the  preceding  Fathers, 
they  bear  such  ample  testimony,  was  an  usurpation,  an  inno- 
vation on  Apostolic  order.  The  learned  historian  Eusebius, 
who,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  drew  up  his 
ecclesiastical  history  from  all  the  writings  of  the  preceding 
ages  that  could  be  procured,  while  he  records  many  minute 
events  and  schisms  in  the  church,  is  not  only  utterly  silent 
as  to  this  extraordinary  usurpation  of  Episcopacy,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  gives  a  list  of  the  Bishops  in  the  principal  cities  up 
to  the  Apostles  themselves  ! 

Few  as  may  be  the  ecclesiastical  writings  of  the  early 
ages  now  extant,  in  some  of  them  surely  we  should  expect 
to  find  a  record  of  this  alleged  innovation.  They  narrate 
minute  events.  Would  they  have  passed  over  one  that  must 
have  entirely  changed  the  features  of  the  visible  church  ? 
And  on  whom  is  reliance  placed  for  proof,  that  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century  Bishops  usurped  authority  over 
Presbyters  ?  On  Jerome,  who  lived  at  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century !     ^'  Alas  !  alas  !"     Desperate  is  thy  cause, 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  No.  II.  p.  215. 
t  He  died  A.  D.  420. 

15 


170  hobart's  apology 

Presbytery  !  The  struggles  of  death  must  have  siezed  thee 
when  thy  advocates  are  thus  compelled  to  outrage  the  com- 
mon sense  of  mankind.  What !  we  are  to  believe  that  a 
change  in  ecclesiastical  government — an  usurpation  of  eccle- 
siastical authority,  the  most  extraordinary  and  fundamental 
that  ever  the  world  witnessed — a  change  and  usurpation,  in 
regard  to  which  contemporarj"  and  succeeding  writers  are 
totally  silent — we  are  to  believe  that  they  took  place  on  the 
authority  of  a  writer  who  lived  near  three  hundred  years 
after  the  period  when  they  must  have  been  effected !  What 
should  we  think  of  a  man  who  should  start  up  and  maintain, 
on  the  authority  of  Dr.  M.  that  near  three  hundred  years  ago, 
when  the  government  of  the  whole  Christian  church  was 
Presbyterian^  it  was  transformed  into  Episcopacy,  into  an 
usurping  hierarchy ;  while  not  a  single  ecclesiastical  writer, 
from  that  time  to  the  present,  lisps  a  syllable  concerning  this 
most  extraordinary  revolution  !  Really,  really,  I  am  ap- 
prehensive we  should  think  such  a  person  had  thrown  aside 
that  common  sense  which  is  the  surest  guide  of  man,  and 
should,  with  Beza,  exclaim,  in  the  emotions  of  amazement 
and  indignation,  "  God  forbid  that  any  man  in  his  senses 
should  assent  to  the  madness  of  such  a  man !" 

Utterly  inadmissible,  therefore,  is  the  testimony  of  Jerome 
to  an  event  which  took  place  centuries  before  his  time,  and 
on  which  all  preceding  writers  are  not  merely  silent,  but 
bear  opposite  testimony.  But  let  us  scrutinize  this  "famous 
testimony,"  to  which  the  Editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine 
triumphantly  clings  as  the  anchor  of  his  cause.  Let  us  ex- 
amine the  character  of  the  witness,  and  the  nature  of  his  tes- 
timony. 

Is  the  witness  unbiassed  and  unprejudiced  !  No  !  Suspi- 
cions on  this  point  attach  to  him,  which  powerfully  tend  to 
weaken  the  force  of  his  opinion.  It  is  very  well  known, 
that,  distinguished  as  were  the  talents  and  learning  of  Je- 
rome, his  imagination  was  lively,  and  his  disposition  warm 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  171 

and  impetuous.*'  He  had  been  incensed  against  John, 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  some  other  Bishops,  for  what  he 
considered  undue  claims  of  prerogative,  and  wrote  some 
severe  strictures  upon  them.  He  was  also  offended  with  the 
Deacons  for  their  attempt  to  place  themselves  on  a  level  with 
Presbyters.  Under  these  impressions  he  endeavours,  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  his  writings,  to  exalt  his  own  office  of  Presby- 
ter as  much  as  possible,  in  order  to  check  particularly  the 
aspiring  pretensions  of  the  Deacons.  We  impeach  not  the 
veracity  of  Jerome.  We  might  receive  his  testimony  in 
regard  to  any  important  event  which  took  place  in  his  own 
day.  But  when  he  attempts  to  state  the  occurrences  of  a 
period  prior  to  his  own,  and  particularly  when  he  founds  his 
statements  upon  reasoning.,  and  not  upon  positive  testimony, 
it  becomes  a  matter  of  opinion.  It  is  then  our  duty  not 
merely  to  test  the  soundness  of  his  reasoning.,  but  to  inquire 
whether  there  were  not  circumstances  which  might  give  a 
false  bias  to  his  judgment.        * 

Are  we  then  to  receive  implicitly  the  opinion  of  a  warm 
and  impetuous  man  as  proof  of  an  event  which  must  have 

*  The  learned  and  impartial  ecclesiastical  historian,  Dupin,  thus  cha- 
racterises Jerome.  "  His  genius  was  hot  and  vehement ;  he  fell  upon 
his  adversaries  with  fierceness,  made  them  ridiculous  by  his  jests,  tram- 
pled on  them  with  terms  of  contempt,  and  made  them  blush  with  re- 
proaches. Though  he  was  very  learned,  yet  there  is  infinitely  more  liveli- 
ness and  vehemency  in  his  exhortations  and  polemical  works  than  exact- 
ness and  solidity.  He  knew  a  great  deal ;  but  he  never  argued  upon 
principles,  which  made  him  sometimes  contradict  himself.  He  often 
carries  his  subject  too  far,  being  transported  with  his  ordinary  heat." 
"  As  he  indulges  his  ordinary  heat  too  much,  so  he  falleth  into  those 
extremes  for  which  he  hath  been  often  blamed."  Dupin's  Ecclesiastical 
History,  book  iii.  p.  103,  104.  But  lest  the  testimony  of  Dupin  shouldbe 
impeached  because  he  was  an  advocate  of  the  hierarchy,  let  us  hear  what 
MosHEiM  says  of  St.  Jerome.  "  His  complexion  was  excessively  i^arm 
and  choleric;  his  bitterness  against  those  who  differed  from  him  extremely 
keen,  and  his  thirst  of  glory  insatiable.  He  was  so  prone  to  censure,  that 
several  persons,  whose  lives  were  not  only  irreproachable,  but  even  ex- 
emplary, became  the  objects  of  his  unjust  accusations." — Mosheim.  Ecch 
Hist.  Cent.  iv.  Part.  ii.  chap.  2. 


172  hobart's  apology 

taken  place  a  considerable  time  before  he  was  born,  and  in 
regard  to  which  all  preceding  writers  are  silent  ?  Are  we 
to  rest  implicitly  on  the  opinion  of  a  man  advanced  under 
the  influence  of  feelings  of  disgust  and  irritation,  which  must 
have  tended  to  pervert  his  judgment;  advanced  with  the 
evident  aim  of  depreciating  Bishops  and  Deacons  who  had 
offended  him  ?  Is  a  man  considered  as  an  impartial  judge  in 
cases  in  which  his  feelings,  his  rights,  or  his  reputation  are 
peculiarly  interested  ?  Yet  in  this  very  predicament  was 
Jerome.  At  various  times  he  was  engaged  in  controversy 
with  some  Bishops  and  Deacons  concerning  the  encroach- 
ments which  he  conceived  they  were  disposed  to  make  on 
his  office  of  Presbyter.  Personal  and  interested  feelings 
must  have  thus  been  powerfully  called  forth.  Under  the 
influence  of  these  feelings,  Jerome  advances  an  opinion  con- 
cerning a  supposed  revolution  in  the  church  more  than  two 
centuries  before  his  time.  He  gives  not  a  most  distant  hint 
of  its  being  a  recent  occurrence ;  but  fixes  it,  according  to 
the  opinion  of  his  most  learned  advocates,  near  the  apostolic 
age! 

And  this  is  ^'  the  famous  testimony  of  Jerome,"  a  testi- 
mony "  which  cannot  be  shaken,  we  are  told,  by  any  art 
that  sophistry  possesses  !"  Suppose  for  a  moment,  that 
Euseeius,  the  ecclesiastical  historian  at  the  commencement 
of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  writers  who  preceded  him, 
had  borne  the  same  testimony  to  Presbytery  which  they  do 
to  Episcopacy  !  Suppose  that  Euseeius,  instead  of  tracing 
as  he  does  the  succession  of  Bishops  in  the  principal  cities, 
up  to  the  Apostles  themselves,  had  recorded  that  in  all  those 
cities  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  Presbyteries  had  been 
organized  ;  and  that  neither  he,  nor  any  writer  who  preceded 
him,  had  given  the  most  distant  hint  of  this  Presbyterian 
government  having  been  an  innovation.  What  should  we 
think  of  an  Episcopalian  who  should  attempt  to  prove  this 
fact  by  the  opinion  of  a  subsequent  Father  of  the  Church, 
formed  under  circumstances  that  tended  to  give  a  false  bias 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  173 

to  his  judgment  ?  Episcopacy  !  I  should  blush,  I  should 
tremble  for  thee,  wast  thou  reduced  to  this  miserable  expe- 
dient. 

We  reject  then  the  testimony  of  Jerome.  We  reject  him 
as  a  witness  on  this  subject.  We  reject  him  as  a  reasoner. 
He  lived  too  long  after  the  event  to  which  he  testifies  is  sup- 
posed to  have  occurred  to  be  a  credible  witness.  And  there 
were  too  many  personal  considerations  that  called  forth  his 
natural  irritability,  and  influenced  his  judgment,  to  permit 
his  being,  on  this  point,  an  impartial  reasoner.  But  still  we 
will  meet  his  testimony  on  the  ground  of  its  naked  merits. 
We  will  place  it  in  the  face  of  day.  Wonderful !  if  the  very 
testimony  adduced  to  prove  Episcopacy  an  usurpation,  should 
favour  its  apostolic  institution  ! 

Behold  then  the  testimony  of  a  Father  who  lived  at  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century,  and  which  is  relied  on  to  prove 
that  "  the  supremacy  of  Bishops  was  a  human  invention.''^ 
Jerome  adduces  instances  from  scripture,  in  which  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  denote  the  same  office,  and  then  reasons  from 
the  identity  of  names,  that  there  was  originally  a  parity  in 
the  ministry,  but  ''  that  afterwards  it  was  enacted  as  a  remedy 
for  schism,  that  there  should  be  one  elected  who  should  be 
placed  over  the  rest,  lest  every  man  pulling  to  himself  should 
rend  asunder  the  Church  of  Christ.  For  at  Alexandria,  from 
Mark  the  Evangelist  even  unto  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius,  the  Presbyters  always  named  Bishop  one  chosen 
from  themselves,  placed  in  a  higher  grade."*  Jerome  more 
particularly  states  his  opinion  in  his  commentary  on  Titus. 
Arguing  still  from  the  identity  of  names,  he  concludes,  that 
a  Presbyter  and  Bishop  were  originally  the  same,  "  and  be- 
fore, through  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  contensions  arose 
in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul, 
and  I  of  ApolloSj  and  I  of  Cephas,  churches  were  governed 
by  a  common  council  of  Presbyters.  But  afterwards,  when 
every  one  accounted  those  whom  he  had  baptized  as  his  own 

*  Hieronym.  Epist.  85.  ad  Evag. 
15* 


174  hobart's  apology 

disciples,  and  not  Christ's,  it  was  decreed  in  the  whole  world, 
that  one  chosen  from  among  the  Presbyters  should  be  placed 
over  the  rest,  to  whom  the  care  of  the  church  should  apper- 
tain, that  hereby  the  seeds  of  schism  might  be  taken  away. 
As  therefore  Presbyters  do  know,  that  from  the  custom  of 
the  church  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is  set  over  them ;  so 
the  Bishops  should  know  that  they  are  greater  more  by  cus- 
tom than  by  the  truth  of  any  ordinance  of  our  Lord." 

Now,  admitting  that  these  passages  prove  that,  in  the 
opinion  of  Jerome,  Episcopacy  was  a  "  human  invention," 
it  would  be  sufficient,  in  order  to  destroy  this  testimony, 
to  produce  many  other  passages  from  his  writings,  in  which 
he  explicitly  maintains  that  the  supremacy  of  Bishops  was 
an  institution  of  the  Apostles.  A  witness  who  contradicts 
himself  destroys  his  credibilitj'^. 

It  is  also  of  importance  to  observe,  that  this  opinion  of 
Jerome  is  not  founded  on  any  record  of  the  fact,  but  on  rea- 
soning from  the  identity  of  names.  And  as  this  reasoning 
can  be  proved  to  be  fallacious,  his  opinion  (improperly  styled 
testimony)  falls  to  the  ground. 

I  maintain,  however,  that  "  this  famous  testimony  of 
Jerome"  will  fairly  bear  a  construction  in  favour  of  the 
apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy  ;  and  such  a  construction 
only  can  render  this  testimony  of  Jerome  consistent  with 
his  other  declarations,  and  with  common  sense. 

1.  It  is  of  importance  to  observe,  that  the  opinion  of 
Jerome  is  not  explicit  to  the  point  in  proof  of  which  it  is 
alleged.  He  does  not  positively  denj^  that  the  superiority  of 
Bishops  over  Presbyters  was  an  apostolic  institution.  He 
does  not  positively  assert  that  the  change  from  Presbytery 
did  not  take  place  in  the  tijnes  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  it 
was  a  human  invention.  To  make  these  assertions  he  had 
every  possible  inducement.  Warmly  tenacious  of  his  pre- 
rogatives as  Presbyter,  and  irritated  at  what  he  conceived 
the  encroachments  of  the  other  orders  of  the  ministry,  he 
sought  on  all  occasions  to  exalt,  as  much  as  possible,  the 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  ,    175 

oflSce  of  Presbyters,  and  to  depress  the  orders  of  Bishops 
and  Deacons.  This  favourite  object,  to  which  the  strongest 
personal  considerations  conspiring  with  the  warmth  and 
impetuosit}^  of  his  temper  urged  him,  would  have  been 
effectually  accomplished  by  the  express  assertion  that  this 
alteration  was  made  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles.  Under 
such  circumstances  we  would  naturally  expect,  not  ainhi- 
guous^  but  positwe,  unequivocal  language.  But  instead  of 
the  explicit  assertion  that  Episcopacy  was  a  "  human  in- 
vention," he  only  maintains,  that  originally  there  was  a 
parit}'^  in  the  ministry,  and  that  (for  very  substantial  reasons) 
a  change  took  place,  and  a  Bishop  was  exalted  over  Pres- 
byters ;  and  this  change,  for  any  thing  Jerome  ssljs  to  the 
contrary,  may  have  been  made  by  some  of  the  Apostles 
themselves.  It  is  true,  he  says.  Bishops  are  superior  to 
Presbyters  principally  by  "  the  custom  of  the  church."  But 
still  this  custom  may  have  been  founded  on  the  practice  of 
the  Apostles^  who  changed  the  original  parity  of  the  minis- 
try when  they  found  it  injurious  to  the  church.  Let  it  be 
observed,  that  he  does  not  deny  that  apostolic  practice  was 
the  foundation  of  this  custom,  but  is  "  contented  only  to 
deny  that  our  Lord  himself  made  the  distinction.'^''  It  may  be 
said,  indeed,  that  apostolic  practice  in  settling  the  ministry 
is  equivalent  to  divine  institution  ;  and  why,  therefore,  should 
Jerome  oppose  them  to  each  other .?  Because  his  object 
appears  to  be,  to  prove  merely  that  by  the  original  constitu- 
tion of  the  ministry  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  Bishops 
and  Presbyters  were  equal,  and  that  the  supremacy  of 
Bishops  was  a  change  soon  found  necessary  for  the  welfare 
of  the  church. 

Listen,  sir,  on  this  point,  to  the  reasoning  of  one  who  cer- 
tainly was  not  unduly  partial  to  the  Episcopal  cause.* 
"  Jerome's  design  evidently  was  to  say  all  that  he  thought 
true  against  the  distinction  between  Bishops  and  Presby1;ers. 

*  Bishop  Hoadley,  in  his  Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  chap.  i.  p. 
86,  87. 


176  hobart's  apology 

And  yet  in  all  his  zeal  against  this  distinction,  he  saith  only 
that  there  was  a  time  when  this  distinction  was  not  in  being ; 
but  never  intimates  that  it  was  not  made  and  settled  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  themselves ;  or  that  Presbyters  of  after 
ages  altered  the  design  of  the  Apostles  after  their  deaths  : 
which  single  thing,  if  he  could  have  said  with  any  truth, 
must  have  done  his  cause  more  service  than  all  he  hath 
alleged ;  and  therefore  I  conclude,  he  would  certainly  have 
said  itj  and  endeavoured  to  prove  it ^  if  he  had  thought  it  true.^"* 
"  If  his  design  had  been  to  prove  that  this  alteration  was 
made  some  time  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  his  business 
must  have  been  to  show,  not  only  that  there  was  a  time 
during  the  lives  of  the  Apostles^  but  also  that  there  was  an 
intermediate  space  between  Bishops  and  Presbyters  ;  and  this 
from  passages  of  some  writers  or  records  of  some  churches, 
in  that  intermediate  space.  But  this  he  doth  not  so  much  as 
attempt  to  do.  And  from  hence  I  conclude,  that  it  was  not 
his  design  to  affirm  or  to  intimate  any  such  thing. ^^ 

So  far,  therefore,  from  there  being  any  thing  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Jerome  which  forbids  the  conclusion  that  this 
change  took  place  before  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  his  ex- 
pressions rather  sanction  it.     For, 

2.  The  natural  construction  of  the  words  of  Jerome 
would  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  this  change  from  Pres- 
bytery to  Episcopacy  took  place  during  the  times  of  the 
Apostles. 

His  argument  is,  that  by  the  original  constitution  of  the 
ministry,  there  was  no  superiority  of  Bishops,  but  "  the 
churches  were  governed  by  a  common  council  of  Presby- 
ters." But  when  "  the  seeds  of  schism  were  sown  by 
the  people,  saying,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,"  &c. 
a  Bishop  was  chosen  and  placed  over  Presbyters.  Now, 
we  know  that  this  language  of  schism  was  used  during  the 
Apostles^  times,  and  the  declarations  of  Jerome  lead  us 
therefore  to  conclude,  that  during  the  same  period  the  re- 
medy  was   applied  by  exalting   Bishops   over  Presbyters. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  177 

Nor  is  it  a  conclusive  objection  to  this  construction,  that 
several  of  the  apostolic  Epistles  on  which  Jerome  founds 
his  reasoning  in  favour  of  ministerial  parity,  were  written 
after  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which  Christians  are 
represented  as  using  tliis  language  of  schism — ^'  I  am  of 
Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,"  &c.  This  was  the  commence- 
ment of  those  schisms,  which,  according  to  Jerome,  were 
eventually  the  cause  of  the  change  in  the  Christian  minis- 
try. It  is  reasonable  to  conclude  they  continued  till  after 
those  apostolic  epistles  were  written  on  which  he  founds 
ministerial  parity;  and,  therefore,  the  introduction  of  Episco- 
pacy may  have  been  by  apostolic  authority,  since  some  of  the 
Apostles  lived  after  the  epistles  were  written  to  which 
Jerome  appeals.  "  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  St. 
Jerome  thought,  that  immediately  upon  this  disorder  in  the 
church  of  Corinth  this  alteration  was  made  ;  but  rather," 
that  it  was  made  "  when  it  appeared  that  this  humour  was 
not  so  checked  by  St.  FauPs  exhortations^  but  that  it  crept  into 
other  churches  likewise.  What  I  would  say,  therefore,  is 
this — That  we  are  assured  that  these  remarks  agree  to  the 
age  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  it  is  extremely  probable  that 
they  would  not  leave  it  to  succeeding  Presbyters  to  provide 
remedies  for  the  evils  which  they  knew  to  be  in  their  own 
times  ;  that  we  have  no  such  marks  belonging  peculiarly  to 
the  age  after  them,  and  therefore  have  reason  to  think  that 
the  alteration  (if  at  all)  was  made  before  the  death  of  the 
Apostles.''^*  Those  schisms,  as  a  remedy  for  which  Jerome 
supposes  Episcopacy  was  introduced,  prevailed  in  the  time 
of  the  Apostles.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  these  inspired 
rulers  of  the  church  would  leave  it  thus  rent  by  schism  with- 
out prescribing  a  remedy. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  Jerome  which  forbids 
the  supposition  that  this  alleged  revolution  took  place  in  the 
time  of  the  Apostles.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  of  this 
change  from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy  as  the  consequence  of 

*  Bishop  Hoadley.    Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  chap.  i.  p.  93. 


178  hobart's  apology 

a  decree  made  throughout  the  whole  world — Toto  orbe  decretum 
est — It  was  decreed  in  the  whole  world.  These  words  evi- 
dently convey  the  idea  that  the  reception  of  Episcopacy  was 
universal^  immediate,  and  without  opposition;  that  it  was 
made  by  those  who  had  authority  over  the  Christian  church 
in  the  whole  world.  To  effect  such  an  extraordinary  revolu- 
tion in  the  early  ages,  before  any  general  council  had  met  to 
regulate  the  government  of  the  church,  apostolic  authority 
alone  could  be  adequate. 

Bishop  Stillingfleet  indeed,  in  his  Irenicum  (the  armory 
whence  many  of  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  draw  their 
weapons,)  observes,  "That  the  emphasis  lies  not  in  decretum 
estj^^  not  in  the  decree,  "but  in  toto  orbe;  noting  how  sud- 
denly this  order  met  with  universal  acceptance  when  it  was 
first  brought  up  in  the  church  after  the  Apostles'  death." 
But  this  is  mere  hypothesis,  contrary  to  the  obvious  meaning 
of  Jerome's  language.  Besides,  this  hypothesis  of  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  is  predicated  on  what  Jerome  no  where  asserts, 
that  the  supremacy  of  Bishops  took  place  "  after  the  Apos- 
tles' death."  This  is  the  very  point  to  be  proved.  And  the 
very  circumstance  that  Jerome  does  not  expressly  make  this 
assertion,  when  it  would  have  been  so  much  to  his  purpose, 
warrants  the  presumption  that  he  did  not  believe  it.  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  himself,  in  a  performance  published  several 
years  after  his  Irenicum,  with  the  evident  design  of  retracting 
his  reasoning  in  that  work,  acknowledges — "  It  is  hard  to 
conceive  how  such  an  alteration  should  happen  without  the 
Apostles'^  act :  for  if  they  had  left  the  Presbyters  in  full  power 
of  government,  it  is  not  to  be  imagined  they  would  so  univer- 
sally part  with  it,  without  being  obliged  thereto  by  those  who 
had  authority  over  them."*  And  this  remark  is  founded  on 
the  strong  trait  in  human  nature,  that  they  who  have  power 
are  not  willing  to  part  with  it.  How  is  it  possible  too,  that 
this  fundamental  alteration  in  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
church,  divinely  established,  should  have  obtained  "  sudden 
*  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  Sermon  at  St.  Paul's. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  179 

universal  acceptance,"  if  it  rested  only  on  human  authority,  if 
it  were  not  enforced  by  a  decree  of  the  Apostles  ?  The  very 
words  indeed  of  Jerome,  are  those  of  an  authoritative  decree. 
Toto  orhe  decretum^ — it  was  decreed  over  all  the  world.  As 
Bishop  Hoadley  observes,  "  These  are  not  words  of  voluntary 
compact  and  consent  among  Presbyters  ;  but  agreeable  to  an 
authority  superior  to  those  Presbyters  who  were  to  be  re- 
strained, and  whose  abuses  were  to  be  reformed  by  this  de- 
cree :  and  there  being,  according  to  the  present  hypothesis^ 
no  authority  before  this  decree  superior  to  Presbyters,  un- 
less that  of  the  Apostles,  or  some  particular  extraordinary 
church  officers  appointed  by  the  Apostles,  this  decree  for 
the  establishment  of  Episcopacy  must  be  understood  by 
St.  Jerome  to  have  been  in  the  age  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves."* 

The  introduction  of  Episcopacy  by  the  Apostles  is  supposed 
to  be  inconsistent  with  Jerome's  language,  that  ^'  by  little 
and  little  (paulatim)  the  whole  care  was  devolved  upon  one 
(that  the  seeds  of  dissention  might  be  plucked  up.")  Here, 
as  Bishop  Stillingfleet  supposes  in  his  "  Irenicum,"  Je- 
rome "  notes  the  gradual  obtaining  of"  Episcopacy.  But 
how  does  this  supposition  accord  with  Jerome's  language, 
that  "  it  was  decreed  in  the  whole  world  ;"  which,  according 
even  to  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  interpretation,  "  notes  how 
suddenly  this  order  met  with  universal  acceptance .?"  The 
expression  of  Jerome,  "  paulatim,"  by  little  and  little,  must 
refer  therefore  to  the  progress  of  the  conviction  that  parity  in 
the  ministry  would  produce  schism ;  which  conviction  ulti- 
mately^ led  to  ''devolving  all  care  upon  one."  And  all  this 
might  have  taken  place  before  the  death  of  the  Apostles. 
Nor  does  his  assertion  that  "  one  chosen  out  of  (or  by)  the 
Presbyters  should  be  placed  over  the  rest,"  prove  that  the 
Apostles  could  not  have  made  this  change.  For  this  expres- 
sion refers  to  the  mode  in  which  the  Bishop  is  elected,  and 
not  to  the  "  decree  "  by  which  this  order  was  introduced. 

*  Bishop  Hoadley's  Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  chap.  i.  p.  91. 


180  hobart's  apology 

There  is  no  contradiction  in  the  assertions,  that  the  Apostles 
decreed  that  Bishops  should  be  exalted  over  Presbyters,  and 
yet  that  the  Presbyters  elected  one  of  their  number  to  be  their 
Bishop. 

But  it  has  been  said  again,*  "Is  it  imaginable  that  a  man 
who  had  been  proving  all  along  the  superiority  of  a  Presby- 
ter above  a  Deacon,  because  of  his  identity  with  a  Bishop  in 
the  Apostles'*  times ^  should,  at  the  same  time,  say  that  a  Bi- 
shop was  above  a  Presbyter  by  the  Apostles'  institution,  and 
so  directly  overthrow  all  that  he  had  been  saying  before  ?" 
Yes — it  is  not  only  imaginable,  but  consistent  with  Jerome's 
design.  All  that  he  asserts,  all  that  he  aims  to  prove  is,  that 
originally  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were  the  same,  and  so  con- 
stituted by  the  Apostles.  But  he  no  where  maintains  that 
the  change  which  advanced  a  Bishop  above  a  Presbyter  was 
not  made  before  the  death  of  the  Apostles.  The  reason  he 
alleges  for  this  change  is,  that  schisms  arose,  in  consequence 
of  parity  in  the  ministry ;  and  Christians  enlisted  themselves 
under  the  banners  of  different  ministers.  Schisms  of  this 
kind  we  know  arose  during  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  And 
there  is  no  absurdity,  there  is  no  incongruity  with  Jerome's 
arguments  or  design,  in  supposing  that  as  it  gradually  became 
evident  that  this  parity  in  the  ministry  would  produce  schisms, 
it  was  decreed  by  apostolic  authority  that  the  order  of  Bishops 
should  be  placed  over  Presbyters.  There  was  time  enough 
for  this  change  to  be  produced  by  apostolic  authority.  For 
the  Apostle  John  lived  several  years  after  the  Epistles 
were  written  on  which  Jerome  founds  his  arguments  for 
parity.! 

I  am  aware  it  will  be  triumphantly  urged,  Where  is 
the  record  from  scripture  that  this  supremacy  of  Bishops 
which  Jerome  alleges  was  a  change  in  the  original  consti- 

*  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum. 

t  St.  John  died  A.  D.  101.  His  Epistles  are  supposed  to  have  been 
written  about  the  year  90.  Afterwards,  A.  D.  96,  he  wrote  his  Revela- 
tions, in  which,  under  the  denomination  of  the  Angels  of  the  churches, 
he  distinguishes  the  seven  Bishops  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  181 

tution  of  the  church,  was  effected  before  the  death  of  the 
Apostles  ?  And,  it  may  be  asked.  What  record  does  Je- 
rome produce  from  scripture  or  from  antiquity  that  the 
supremacy  of  the  first  grade  of  the  ministry  was  a  change 
in  the  original  constitution  of  the  church  ?  Where  is  his 
record,,  that  this  supremacy  was  an  innovation,  and  not  the 
original  apostolic  institution  ?  We  look  for  his  record — and 
lo !  it  turns  out  to  be  an  argument  from  identity  of  names — 
from  the  names  Bishop  and  Presbyter  being  in  scripture 
applied  to  the  same  grade  of  ministers  !*  This  is  a  mere 
fallacy.  The  real  and  important  question  is  not  whether  the 
names  Bishop  and  Presbyter  do  not  designate  in  scripture 
the  same  grade  of  ministers  ;  but  whether  there  was  not  a 
grade  superior  to  those  called  Presbyters  and  Bishops,  in 
which  grade  were  Timothy  and  Titus,  to  whom  those  after- 
wards called  Bishops  succeeded.  Let  it  be  remembered 
then,  that  as  this  alleged  change  is  entirely  a  matter  of  opinion 
and  reasoning,  and  as  Jerome  does  not  assert  that  it  took 
place  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  we  are  not  bound  to 
assign  it  to  this  period ;  particularly,  when  by  so  doing  we 
shall  make  Jerome  contradict  his  own  express  declarations, 
in  other  parts  of  his  writings,  that  Episcopacy  was  an  apos- 
tolic institution. 

There  may  be  some  difficulty  in  making  Jerome  consistent 
with  himself.  But  any  inconsistency  in  which  he  involves 
himself  destroys  the  weight  of  his  judgment.  We  certainly 
cannot  prove  from  the  passages  of  his  writings  which  have 
been  above  considered,  that  he  positively  asserts  the  apostolic 
institution  of  Episcopacy.  On  the  contrary,  there  may  be 
some  parts  of  his  statement  which  look  a  contrary  way.  All 
for  which  I  would  contend  is,  that  he  does  not  positively 
deny  that  his  alleged  change  from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy 
did  not  take  place  before  the  death  of  some  of  the  Apostles, 
and  that  his  language  will  bear  the  construction  that  it  was 
effected  under  apostolic  authority.  And  I  would  contend  for 
*  See  p.  179. 
16 


182  hobart's  apology 

this  construction,  because  it  alone  will  make  Jerome  consis- 
tent in  his  statements. 

3.  For  he  makes  many  other  declarations  which  import 
that  he  believed  Episcopacy  was  an  apostolic  institution. 

Some  of  these  declarations  occur  in  the  passages  which 
constitute  what  is  called  his  testimony  against  Episcopacy. 
When  he  adduces  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  he  observes, 
"  From  Mark  the  Evangelist^  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius, 
Bishops  thereof,  the  Presbyters  always  named  one  chosen 
out  of  them,  and  placed  in  a  higher  degree.  Bishop."  Here 
we  may  infer  that  Jerome  maintains  the  apostolic  institution 
of  Episcopacy.  He  asserts  that  it  commenced  in  the  Church 
at  Alexandria  "from  Mark  the  Evangelist."  Of  course  it 
commenced  in  the  apostolic  age.  It  cannot  be  said  that  this 
change  was  the  act  of  the  Presbyters  merely.  Their  business 
indeed  was  to  choose  their  Bishop.  But  as  this  change  in 
the  ministry^  by  which  a  Bishop  was  exalted  above  the  Pres- 
byters, commenced  from  "  Mark  the  Evangelist,"  it  must 
have  had  the  sanction  of  apostolic  authority.  Nor  does  it 
follow  from  the  Presbyters  choosing  their  Bishop,  that  he 
received  his  authority  from  the  Presbyters,  and  was  not  in- 
vested with  it  by  Episcopal  ordination.  The  choice  of  a 
Bishop,  the  persons  by  whom  he  is  appointed,  and  his  ordi- 
nation and  the  persons  by  whom  it  is  performed,  may  be,  and 
commonly  are,  in  all  Episcopal  churches,  distinct.  Jerome 
notes  particularly  the  custom  at  Alexandria  of  the  Presby- 
ters choosing  their  Bishop,  because  in  his  time  the  choice 
was  generally  made  by  the  Emperor,  or  by  the  Bishops  of 
the  province,  by  whom  they  were  afterwards  ordained. *" 
Jerome  no  where  states  any  difference  in  respect  to  their  or- 
dination between  the  Bishops  of  his  day,  and  those  of  Alex- 
andria.   We  are  at  liberty  to  conclude  that  these  last,  though 

*  It  is  astonishing  that  Stillingfleet  and  Dr.  Campbell  after  him, 
should  quote  Eutychius,  a  patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  the  tenth  century, 
to  prove  that  the  Presbyters  of  Alexandria  themselves  ordained  the  per- 
son v^hom  they  had  chosen  Bishop ! 


FOR   APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  183 

chosen  by  the  Presbyters  in  like  manner  "as  if  an  army 
should  choose  their  general,  or  Deacons  an  Archdeacon," 
were  afterwards  ordained.  "  These  Bishops  must,  according 
to  St.  Jerome,  have  been  the  governors  of  the  churchy  and  of 
the  Presbyters  themselves  :  for  he  makes  all  the  care  and 
solicitude  concerning  ecclesiastical  affairs  to  be  devolved  upon 
them  as  soon  as  they  were  constituted.  They  must  be  the 
ordainers  of  other  Presbyters^  even  according  to  Blondel 
himself,  unless  he  deny  to  them  what  he  grants  to  his  Prime- 
Presbyters  in  each  church.  So  that  here  are  Bishops  with 
distinct  powers,  after  their  election^  from  those  of  their  elec- 
tors (as  distinct  as  the  powers  of  a  general  from  those  of  the 
army  which  chooses  him,  which  is  one  of  the  similitudes  by 
which  he  illustrates  this  matter)  immediately  succeeding  St. 
Mark  in  the  church  of  Alexandria :  and  consequently  the  like 
in  other  churches^  according  to  St.  Jerome,  who  makes  all 
churches  uniform,  and  the  reception  of  Episcopacy^  whenever 
it  was  received,  to  be  universal  at  the  same  time."* 

After  the  instance  of  the  church  at  Alexandria,  Jerome 
uses  this  strong  expression — "  Quid  enim  facity  excepta  or- 
dinatione^  Episcopus,  quod  Presbyter  non  facial " — "  For  what 
does  a  Bishop,  except  ordination,  which  a  Presbyter  may  not 
doV  Here  is  an  acknowledgment  that  Presbyters  had  no 
original  right  to  ordain.  He  could  not  have  meant  merely  to 
assert  that  in  his  time  Presbyters  did  not  ordain.  He  could 
not  have  meant — "  What  does  a  Bishop  which  a  Presbyter 
may  not  do,"  by  ecclesiastical  regultaion,  "  except  ordina- 
tion .^"  For  in  his  day,  by  ecclesiastical  law.  Bishops  had 
other  powers,  (as,  for  instance,  the  power  of  judging  and 
governing  the  clergy,)  to  which  the  Presbyters  did  not 
pretend.  On  this  construction  the  question  would  lose  all 
its  force.  His  aim  is  to  level,  as  much  as  possible,  Bishops 
with  Presbyters;  and  yet  he  never  vests  Presbyters  with 
the  power  of  ordination.  He  ascribes  to  them  originally  the 
power  of  government  only.  "  The  churches  were  governed 
*  Bishop  Hoadley.     Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination. 


184 

by  common  councils  of  Presbyters."  The  Apostles  at  this 
time  exercised  the  power  of  oi'dination.  His  aim  in  level- 
ling Bishops  with  Presbyters  would  have  been  more  effec- 
tually answered  by  excluding  them  expressly  from  the 
power  of  ordination  as  well  as  government.  On  the  con- 
trary, as  a  writer*  (who  hath  never  incurred  the  impu- 
tation of  carrying  very  high  the  Episcopal  claims)  well 
observes,  "  he  doth  at  the  same  time  himself  deny  to  them 
this  right  of  ordination.  This  right,  I  say  ;  for  of  that  his 
words  must  be  understood,  when  he  asks,  in  order  to  carry 
their  cause  as  high  as  he  could,  Quid  enim,  excepta  ordina- 
tione^facit  Episcopus,  quod  Presbyter  nonfaciat  ?  A  Bishop 
in  his  days  had  many  other  powers  to  which  Presbyters  did 
not  pretend,  besides  that  of  ordination;  and  therefore  the 
question  was  not  at  all  to  his  purpose,  unless  he  meant  to 
signify  by  it,  as  his  opinion,  that  the  Presbyters  were  never 
entrusted  with  the  affair  of  ordination,  though  they  were 
with  that  of  the  government  of  the  churches  of  Christ  by 
their  joint  counsels  ;  by  which  means  he  leaves  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  to  church  officers  superior  in  this  to  Pres- 
byters, and  so  destroys  the  supposition  of  Blondel  and 
others,  of  their  continuing  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  near 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.'*^  "  And  that  this  was  his 
meaning  is  plain  likewise  from  St.  Chrysostom,  who  follows 
him  in  his  opinion  of  the  original  rights  of  Presbyters,  and 
owns  expressl)^,  that  Bishops  are  superior  to  them  in  point  of 
ordination,  though  in  that  only:  and  this,  when  he  is  examin- 
ing their  original  rights,  and  not  the  state  they  were  in  in  his 
days,  in  which  he  knew  that  Bishops  were,  in  other  respects, 
superior  to  Presbyters.''^ 

In  that  very  epistle  to  Evagrius  in  which  Jerome  is  sup- 
posed to  deny  the  apostolic  institution  of  Bishops,  we  have 
the  following  passage  :  "  And  that  we  may  know  that  the 
apostolic  traditions  are  taken  out  of  the  Old  Testament, 
what  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  tem- 
*  Bishop  Hoadley.     Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  chap.  1. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  185 

pie,  let  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  claim  for  them- 
selves in  the  church."  In  this  passage  the  superiority  of 
Bishops  to  Presbyters  is  called  an  Apostolic  tradition;  the 
obvious  meaning  of  which  is,  that  this  superiority  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Apostles.  Against  this  construction  it  is  alleged 
that  Jerome  elsewhere  speaks  of  this  superiority  as  an  "  ec- 
clesiastical custom.''''  But  this  objection  has  no  force  unless 
it  can  be  proved,  that  an  ecclesiastical  custom  cannot  be  also 
an  apostolical  tradition,  that  an  ecclesiastical  custom  cannot 
be  founded  on  apostolical  tradition  or  authority.  But  it  is 
said  there  is  decisive  proof  that  Jerome  by  '^  apostolical  tra- 
dition" meant  no  more  than  ecclesiastical  usage,  from  a 
passage  in  one  of  his  epistles.  ^'  Let  every  province  abound 
in  its  own  sense,  and  account  of  the  ordinances  of  their 
ancestors  as  of  apostolical  laws."  *  But  this  is  only  an  in- 
junction to  revere  some  customs  confessedly  of  human  insti- 
tution, as  if  they  were  apostolical  traditions,  and  does  not 
prove  that  there  were  not  other  customs  which  were  apos- 
tohcal  traditions.  The  superiority  of  Bishops  is  expressly 
styled  an  apostolical  tradition. 

And  there  is  surely  a  wide  difference  between  calling  a 
custom  an  apostolical  tradition,  and  commanding  us  to  revere 
as  if  it  were  an  apostolical  tradition.  "  It  is  one  thing  for  a 
writer  to  say,  that  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  and  good  of 
the  church,  people  should  look  upon  and  observe  good  and 
innocent  customs  as  if  they  were  apostolical  traditions ;  and 
another  to  call  any  thing  absolutely  an  apostolical  tradition. 
And  again  it  is  very  just  to  call  any  matter  of  practice  both 
an  ecclesiastical  custom,  and  an  apostolical  tradition,  without 
meaning  the  same  thing  by  both  those  terms."!  These  differ- 
ent modes  of  expression  mark  determinately  and  clearly  a 
distinction  between  those  customs  which  were  founded  on 
apostolical  authority,  and  those  which  were  of  human  origin. 

*  Unaquseque  provincia  abundet  in  sensu  suo,   et  precepta  majorum 
leges  apostolicas  arbitretur.     Hieron.  Epist.  20.  ad  Lucinum. 
t  Bishop  Hoadley.     Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination,  chap.  i. 
16^ 


186  hobart's  apology 

Jerome  does  not  enjoin  us  to  account  of  the  superiority  of 
Bishops  as  if  it  were  an  apostolic  tradition.  He  expressly 
styles  it  one  ;  and  it  is  surely  very  strange  that  they  who 
contend  so  strongly  for  the  veracity  of  Jerome,  should  con- 
tend that  he  meant  that  it  was  not  one. 

The  force  of  the  above  passage,  therefore,  is,  that  by  apos- 
tolic authority  there  is  the  same  distinction  and  subordina- 
tion among  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  under  the 
gospel,  that  there  were  between  the  High  Priest,  Priests, 
and  Levites  under  the  law.  Aaron,  the  High  Priest,  was 
superior  to  the  Priests  ;  so  is  a  Bishop  to  a  Presbyter.  An 
objection  to  this  construction  is,  that  it  makes  Jerome  con- 
tradict himself ;  as  it  was  his  design  to  prove  that  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  were  by  apostolic  institution  the  same.  This 
objection  vanishes  when  we  consider  that  Jerome  only  rea- 
sons concerning  the  original  constitution  of  the  ministry, 
according  to  which  he  maintains  the  identity  of  Bishop  and 
Presbyter.  He  admits  that  a  change  took  place,  and  he  no 
where  asserts  that  it  was  not  effected  before  the  death  of  the 
Apostles,  or  that  it  rests  only  on  human  authority.  On  the 
contrary,  as  has  been  already  stated,  there  are  many  reasons 
which  favour  the  opposite  opinion. 

But  it  has  been  said  by  Stillingfleet,  that  Jerome,  in 
this  passage,  "  runs  the  comparison  not  between  Aaron  and 
his  sons  under  the  law,  and  Bishops  and  Presbyters  under 
the  gospel ;  but  between  Aaron  and  his  sons  as  one  part  of 
the  comparison  under  the  law,  and  the  Levites  under  them 
as  the  other ;  so  under  the  gospel  Bishops  and  Presbyters 
make  one  part  of  the  comparison,  answering  to  Aaron  and 
his  sons  in  that  wherein  they  all  agree,  viz.  the  order  of  the 
priesthood ;  and  the  other  part  under  the  gospel  is  that  of 
DeaconSj  answering  to  the  Levites  under  the  law."*  But  it 
happens  that  Isidore,  a  Bishop  of  Seville,  whom  Stilling- 
fleet quotes  I  as  maintaining  the  same  opinion  with  Jerome, 
runs  a  comparison  between  Aaron  and  his  sons  the  Priests 
*  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  part  ii.  chap.  6.  f  Ibid. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  187 

under  the  law,  and  Bishops  and  Presbyters  under  the  gospel. 
"  To  the  Apostles  after  their  death  succeeded  the  Bishops  ; 
who  are  appointed  throughout  the  whole  world  to  the  seats 
of  the  Apostles.''''  "  It  ought  to  be  noted,  that  what  Aaron 
the  High  Priest  was,  the  same  was  the  Bishop  ;  his  sons 
prefigured  the  Presbyters."*  And  in  that  very  chapter  in 
which  Stillingfleet  represents  him  as  adopting  Jerome's 
opinion,  he  says,  when  speaking  of  the  Apostle's  including 
Presbyters  under  the  name  Bishops,  "  The  Apostle  is  silent 
concerning  Presbyters,  because  he  includes  them  in  the  name 
of  Bishops  ;  for  the  second  grade  is  united  with  the  first. ""I" 

This  opinion  of  Isidore  proves  that  a  writer  whom  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  represents  as  advocating  the  sentiments  of 
Jerome,  may  with  Jerome  assert  the  identity  of  names,  and 
yet  maintain  that  a  Bishop  was  a  superior  grade  of  the  same 
order  as  a  Presbyter,  and  possessed  superior  powers ;  and 
that  this  superiority  answers  to  the  superiority  of  the  High 
Priest  over  the  Priests  in  the  legal  dispensation.  Jerome 
himself  explicitly  adopts  the  same  opinion,  and  runs  the  com- 
parison between  Aaron  and  his  sons  under  the  law,  and 
Bishops  and  Presbyters  under  the  gospel.  He  admonishes 
the  Presbyter  Nepotiarij  "  Be  subject  to  your  chief  Priest," 
&c.  and  soon  afterwards  enforces  it  by  this  reason — ^"  Be- 
cause we  ought  to  know  that  what  Aaron  and  his  sons  are^ 
the  same  is  a  Bishop  and  his  Presbyters.''^ "l  If  it  be  said, 
that  in  this  passage  Jerome  means  that  Bishops  were  supe- 
rior to  Presbyters  only  by  the  custom  of  his  day,  with  the 
same  propriety  it  may  be  said,  that  in  the  former  case,  when 
he  runs  the  comparison  between  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  he 
meant  to  assert  the  superiority  of  the  former  to  the  latter 
only  by  the  custom  of  the  age  !  This  is  a  conclusion  which 
the  advocates  of  Presbytery  will  not  admit. 

The  warmest  advocate  of  Episcopacy  would  not  wish  to 

*  Isidore,  de  offic.  Eccles.  lib.  ii.  cap.  5.  f  Cap.  7. 

X  Hieron.  Epist.  ad  Nepotianum. 


188  hobart's  apology 

use  stronger  language  concerning  it  than  that  which  Jerome 
uses  in  the  following  passages. 

In  his  fifty-fourth  Epistle  he  distinguishes  between  the 
orthodox  Christians  and  certain  heretics,  by  saying,  "  With 
us  the  Bishops  hold  the  place  of  the  Apostles^  with  them  the 
Bishop  is  the  third  degree."  Here  such  Bishops  as  there 
were  in  Jerome's  time,  when  confessedly  they  were  supe- 
rior to  Presbyters,  and  vested  with  the  power  of  ordination, 
"held  the  place  of  the  Apostles." 

More  explicitly  still  in  his  catalogue  of  ecclesiastical 
writers,  he  records^  as  a  matter  of  fact,  "  James,  immediately 
after  our  Lord's  ascension,  having  been  ordained  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  undertook  the  charge  of  the  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem. Timothy  was  ordained  Bishop  of  the  Ephesians  by 
Paul,  Titus  of  Crete.  Polycarp  was  by  John  ordained 
Bishop  of  Smyrna."  Here  then  we  have  Bishops  ordained 
in  the  churches  by  the  Apostles  themselves. 

It  is  to  no  purpose  to  say  that  Jerome  makes  these  as- 
sertions on  the  authority  of  others.  He  surely  believed 
these  assertions  were  supported  by  sufficient  historical  evi- 
dence, or  he  would  not  have  made  them.  And  he  cer- 
tainly was  not  inclined  to  give  undue  weight  to  testimonies 
A   f        that  favoured  the  cause  of  Bishops.     Ah !  but  Jerome  tes- 

\j^  ,  tifying  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  and  Jerome  testifying 
against  it,  are  two  different  persons  !  In  the  former  case 
his  testimon)'^  is  triumphantly  adduced  as  "  a  famous  testi- 
mony not  to  be  erased  by  any  art  that  sophistry  possesses." 

^  P*  /(jfjlnthe  latter  case  we  shall  doubtless  find  much  ingenuity  ex- 
*  ^erted  to  prove  that  his  testimony  is  "  not  worth  a  straw  !" 
We  shall  doubtless  be  told  that  when  Jerome  speaks  of 
Bishops  as  successors  to  the  Apostles ,  and  as  ordained  by  the 
Apostles,  he  does  not  consider  them  as  superior  officers,  but 
regards  them  only  as  Presbyters.  What !  were  not  Bishops 
superior  to  Presbyters  in  the  time  of  Jerome  ?  Confessedly 
so.  And  when  he  speaks  of  Bishops  as  ordained  by  the 
Apostles,  and  as  being  their  successors,  does  he  intimate  that 


h^l 


FOR   APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  189 

he  uses  the  term  Bishop  in  any  other  than  that  appropriate 
sense  in  which  it  was  applied  in  his  day,  when  the  Bishop 
was  confessedly  an  officer  superior  to  Presbyters,  and  vested 
with  the  power  of  ordination  ?  No  such  intimation  is  given. 
And  without  such  intimation  we  should  be  doing  violence  to 
language  and  to  common  sense  to  suppose,  that  in  these 
cases  he  applied  the  term  Bishop  in  any  other  than  its  appro-  .JJ — 
priate  sense.  The  language  of  Jerome  is  conformable  to  the 
language  of  ancient  writers,  particularly  Eusebius,  who  lived 
a  short  time  before  him,  and  who  gives  a  list  of  Bishops  as 
they  were  in  his  day  (single  persons  in  every  church  vested 
with  the  power  of  ordination)  up  to  the  Apostles  themselves. 

But  we  have  Jerome's  explicit  testimony  that  by  Bishops 
being  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  ordained  by  the  Apostles, 
he  does  not  mean  Presbyters,  but  such  Bishops  as  were 
superior  to  Presbyters,  and  vested  with  the  exclusive  power 
of  ordination. 

In  his  commentary  on  the  45th  Psalm,  we  find  him  as- 
serting, "  Now,  because  the  Apostles  are  departed  from 
the  world,  thou  hast  instead  of  them  Bishops,  their  sons. 
They  are  thy  fathers,  because  thou  art  governed  by  them." 
He  is  evidently  speaking  of  the  time  present,  of  his  own 
time  (now,)  when  Bishops  were  superior  to  Presbyters, 
and  vested  with  the  power  of  ordination.  These  Bishops 
he  represents  as  the  "  sons  of  the  Apostles,"  as  succeeding 
to  them  when  they  left  the  world. 

In  his  Epistle  to  Heliodorus,  "  of  not  undertaking  the 
office  of  a  Bishop,''^  he  observes,  "  It  is  not  easy  to  stand  in 
the  place  of  Paul,  to  hold  the  degree  of  Peter. "^"^  In  this 
Epistle  he  is  undoubtedly  considering  the  office  'of  a  Bishop 
as  it  was  in  his  day ;  and  therefore,  in  his  judgment,  the 
Bishop  of  his  day,  an  officer  distinct  from  and  superior  to 
Presbyters,  and  exercising  the  power  of  ordination,  "  stood 
in  the  place  of  Paul,  and  held  the  grade  of  Peter."  Of  the 
same  purport  is  the  passage  which  has  been  already  adduced,* 
*  Page  187. 

X-   -.  ,^ 


190  hobart's  apology 

in  which  he  advises  the  Presbyter  Nepotian,  "  Be  subject  to 
thy  chief  Priest,  and  regard  him  as  the  parent  of  thy  soul — 
What  Aaron  and  his  sons  were,  that  we  should  know  Bishops 
and  Presbyters  are."  Here,  without  doubt,  he  refers  to  the 
Bishops  and  Presbyters  of  his  day,  when  these  officers  were 
distinct  and  subordinate,  and  when  Bishops  were  vested  with 
all  the  powers  which  their  advocates  claim  for  them.  These 
Bishops  and  Presbyters,  according  to  Jerome,  claim  obedience 
by  the  same  authority  under  the  gospel  that  Aaron  and  his 
sons  did  under  the  law  ! 

Is  it  credible  that  Jerome  would  have  spoken  of  Bishops 
in  these  strong  terms — such  Bishops  as  there  were  in  his 
age,  when  the  opponents  of  Episcopacj^  acknowledge  they 
possessed  the  exclusive  power  of  ordination — is  it  credible 
that  he  would  have  spoken  of  them  as  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  as  ordained  by  the  Apostles,  and  as  holding  the 
place  of  the  Apostles,  if  their  "supremacy"  had  been  of 
"  human  invention,"  if  they  had  not  been  of  apostolic 
authority  .?  No  !  As  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  not  without 
pungency  observes — "  If  they  had  come  in  by  usurpation,  he 
would  have  called  them  the  successors  of  Simon  Magus,  of 
Diotrephes,  of  Caiaphas,  and,  according  to  his  warm  manner 
of  expression,  of  Lucifer  himself."* 

It  may  be  said,  than  when  Jerome  maintains  that  James, 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  others  were  ordained  Bishops  by  the 
Apostles,  and  placed  over  Presbyters,  he  contradicts  him- 
self; because,  at  other  times  he  argues  from  the  Epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were  the 
same.  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were,  indeed,  originally 
names  of  the  same  office.  But  there  was  at  the  same  time 
a  superior  grade  of  church  officers  (in  which  grade  were 
Timothy  and  Titus,)  first  called  Apostles,  and  afterwards 
Bishops.  Still  we  shall  be  told,  this  could  not  be  Jerome's 
opinion,  because  he  asserts  that  the  church  was  governed  at 

*  Stillingfleet's  sermon  at  an  ordination  at  St.  Paul's. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  191 

first  by  a  common  council  of  Presbyters.  We  cannot  ac- 
count for  this  extraordinary  declaration  of  Jerome,  but  from 
the  warmth,  the  impetuosity,  and  hastiness  of  his  temper. 
Inflamed  with  resentment  against  the  Bishops  and  Deacons, 
we  see  him  at  one  time  endeavouring  to  prove  from  the  apos- 
tolic Epistles,  that  there  was  no  supremacy  of  Bishops  to 
Presbyters,  At  other  times,  attending  only  to  the  strong 
evidence  of  historical  fact,  we  find  him  asserting,  that  the 
Apostles  themselves  ordained  Bishops — such  Bishops  as  ex- 
isted in  his  own  time,  when  their  supremacy  was  certainly 
acknowledged.  I  am  no  ways  interested  in  clearing  up  an 
inconsistency  which  destroys  entirely  "  the  famous  testi- 
mony of  Jerome."  No  person  would  think  of  resting  his 
cause  on  a  witness  whose  declarations,  to  say  the  least,  are 
dubious  and  perplexed,  if  not  contradictory. 

It  is,  however,  of  importance  to  observe,  that  when 
Jerome  maintains  the  original  parity  of  the  ministry,  he  does 
not  appeal  to  anj'  record^  to  any  satisfactory  historical  evi- 
dence, but  reasons  from  the  identity  of  the  names  of  Bishop 
and  Presbyter.*  The  real  question  is,  not  whether  these 
names  are  in  scripture  applied  to  the  same  grade  of  the  minis- 
try, which  is  granted  ;  but  whether  there  was  not  a  superior 
grade  to  them  to  which,  after  the  apostolic  times,  the  term 
Bishop  has  been  exclusively  applied.  If  we  discard  an  atten- 
tion to  "  names^  which  are  of  little  real  value, "|  and  attend 
to  ''  things  for  which  alone  we  should  contend,"  it  is  evident 
beyond  dispute,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  vested  with 
the  powers  of  ordination  and  government ;  were  authorized 
to  ordain  and  govern  Presbyters  (called  also,  as  overseers  of 
the  flock.  Bishops ;)  and  of  course  v/ere  superior  to  them. 
We  can  thus  get   over  the  reasoning   of  Jerome  ;  we  can 

*  Wherever  he  asserts  the  original  parity  of  the  ministry,  or  rather  of 
Bishops  and  Presbyters,  he  argues  from  the  identity  of  names,  from  the 
circumstance  that  in  scripture  the  names, Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  applied 
to  the  same  office. 

t  Mr.  M'Leod's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism. 


192  hobart's  apology 

prove  the  fallacy  of  his  opinion.  His  statement  concerning 
the  original  parity  of  the  ministry  is  a  matter  of  opinion 
founded  on  reasoning  which  may  be  proved  fallacious. 

But  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  who  confide  in  Jerome 
as  a  credible  witness,  cannot  consistently  reject  his  testimony. 
And  he  expressly  asserts,  as  a  matter  of  fact ^  that  "  Timothy 
was  ordained  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  Titus  of  Crete,  St.  James 
of  Jerusalem,  and  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  by  the  Apostles ;" 
using  the  term  Bishop  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  his  own  age, 
to  denote  a  grade  of  ministers  superior  to  Presbyters.  It  may 
be  said,  that  these  are  facts  prior  to  the  time  of  Jerome,  of 
which  he  could  not  have  been  an  eye  witness.  So  was  the 
alleged  change  from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy.  The  oppo- 
nents of  Episcopacy  receive  Jerome  's  reasonings  as  authority 
in  favour  of  this  change ;  they  surely  cannot  reject  his  testi- 
mony^  founded  on  historical  evidence,  in  the  former  case.  But, 
it  is  said,  the  two  cases  are  contradictory  !  If,  then,  two 
statements  of  any  witness  are  contradictory,  and  we  wish  to 
preserve  his  consistency,  we  must  give  up  that  statement  which 
is  a  matter  of  opinion  and  reasoning^  and  receive  that  which 
he  alleges  as  a  matter  of  fact.  Now,  Jerome  in  some  parts 
of  his  writings  asserts  that  there  was  originally  a  parity  in 
the  ministry,  and  reasons  in  support  of  his  assertion  from  the 
identity  of  the  names  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter.  His  state- 
ment here,  then,  is  a  matter  of  opinion.,  entitled  to  no  credit 
with  those  who  believe  the  reasoning  which  supports  it  falla- 
cious. But  when  he  asserts,  that  St.  James  was  ordained 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  Timothy  of  Ephesus,  Titus  of  Crete, 
and  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  by  the  Apostles — ^here  is  his  testi- 
mony to  a  matter  of  fact,  founded  on  what  must  have  been  to 
him  satisfactory  historical  evidence.  This  testimony  ought  to 
be  conclusive  with  you,  Sir,  who  rest  on  Jerome  as  a  credible 
witness.  The  common  rules  of  evidence,  therefore,  will  com- 
pel you  to  give  up  Jerome's  opinion^  founded  on  reasoning 
which  may  be  fallacious,  and  to  receive  his  testimony  to  a 
matter  of  fact,    founded  on  satisfactory  historical  evidence, 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  l^S 

that  the  Apostles  ordained  Bishops  over  Presbyters  in  the 
churches.* 

I  have  dwelt  thus  long  on  what  you  are  pleased  to  term 
"  the  famous  testimony  of  Jerome,"  in  order  to  show  to  what 
a  desperate  expedient  the  advocates  of  Presbytery  are  driven 
to  support  their  cause.  The  supremacy  of  Bishops  in  the 
fourth  century  is  universally  acknowledged.  To  prove  this 
supremacy  an  innovation,  they  rely  on  a  Father  who  lived  at 
least  two  centuries  after  the  time  when,  by  their  own  con- 
fession, it  must  have  taken  place ;  while  Fathers,  and  eccle- 
siastical writers  who  preceded  him,  and  who  narrate  minute 
events  and  schisms  in  the  church,  are  silent  concerning  this 
most  improbable  and  extraordinar}^  innovation.  So  far  also 
from  being  a  credible  witness,  the  Father  on  whom  they  rely 
was  urged,  by  personal  motives  and  feelings  of  resentment,  to 
lower  as  much  as  possible  the  authority  of  Bishops.  His  de- 
claration that  their  supremacy  was  a  change  in  the  original 
order  of  the  church,  is  unworthy  of  the  name  of  testimony. 
It  is  a  matter  of  opinion^  founded  on  fallacious  reasoning.  His 
testimony <f  which  is  founded  on  historical  evidence^  is  decisive, 
that  Bishops,  as  superior  to  Presbyters,  are  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  who  themselves  ordained  Bishops  in  the  churches. 
There  is  no  way  of  rendering  the  statements  of  Jerome  con- 
sistent, but  by  supposing  that  this  change,  which  he  fancies, 
was  sanctioned  by  apostolic  authority.  If  this  mode  of  recon- 
ciling his  declarations  be  not  admitted,  still  he  does  not  in  the 
least  degree  favour  the  cause  of  parity.  His  declarations  in 
favour  of  the  apostolic  supremacy  of  Bishops,  are  at  least  as 

*  It  may  be  said  that  Jerome  rests  principally  on  the  historian  Euse- 
Bius,  who  acknowledges  that  it  is  difticult  to  determine  the  particular 
Bishops  who  succeeded  the  Apostles.  Eusebitts,  however,  is  explicit 
as  to  the  fact  that  the  supremacy  of  Bishops  is  an  apostolic  institution. 
And  surely  if  this  supremacy  had  been  an  innovation  or  usurpation,  there 
would  have  been,  in  his  day  at  least,  some  tradition  of  this  extraordinary 
event.  The  dispute  as  to  the  particular  order  in  which  some  of  the 
apostolic  Bishops  succeeded  each  other,  incontestibly  proves  the  fact  that 
there  were  Bishops  in  the  apostolic  age. 

17 


194  hobart's  apology 

numerous  and  decisive  as  those  against  it.  On  the  supposi- 
tion most  unfavorable  to  Episcopalians,  Jerome  contradicts 
himself;  and  thus  his  "  famous  testimony"  is  "  not  worth  a 
straw." 

But  had  the  opinion  of  Jerome  been  direct  and  positive, 
had  he  asserted  in  the  most  explicit  terms  that  Episcopacy 
was  "a  human  invention,"  no  candid  Presbyterian  should 
urge  his  testimony.  He  lived  at  too  distant  a  period  from  the 
apostolic  age.  He  was  biassed  by  personal  feelings  and  pre- 
judices. It  is  incredible  that  so  important  and  extraordinary 
a  change  as  that  from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy  should  have 
universally  taken  place  in  the  church  without  the  most  full 
and  positive  testimony  concerning  it.  It  would  not  have  been 
left  to  the  single  testimony  of  a  Father  who  wrote  at  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century. 

The  opponents  of  Episcopacj'  gain  nothing  by  relying  on 
Jerome.  They  lose  much.  They  admit  the  weakness  of 
their  cause,  by  resting  on  the  judgment  of  a  Father  who 
lived  so  late  as  the  fourth  century,  and  who  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  a  credible  witness^  or  an  impartial  reasoner.  They 
admit  that  long  before  his  time  (for  he  gives  not  the  most 
distant  hint  of  its  being  a  recent  event)  the  supremacy  of 
Bishops  over  Presbyters  was  established.  They  thus  con- 
cede to  Episcopacy  the  venerable  sanction  of  primitive  and 
universal  usage.  They  bring  on  themselves  the  burden  of 
proving  how  Episcopacy  could  have  universally  prevailed 
within  a  few  years  of  the  apostolic  age,  if  it  had  not  been 
sanctioned  by  apostolic  authority.  But,  most  mortifying 
circumstance,  they  cast  a  blot  black  as  midnight  on  their 
darling  Presbytery ;  they  pass  the  highest  encomium  on 
this  hated  Prelacy.  In  relying  on  Jerome,  they  admit 
that  Episcopacy  was  brought  in  as  "  a  remedy  for  schism  ;" 
they  admit  that  Presbytery  proved  incompetent  to  pre- 
serving the  unity  of  the  church ;  that  so  lamentable  were 
its  defects  and  inconveniences,  that  the  primitive  Christians 
were  obliged  to  throw  it  off,  and  to  seek  repose  for  their  dis- 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  195 

tracted  church,  so  long  tossed  on  the  tempestuous  billows  of 
Presbytery,  in  the  peaceful  haven  of  Episcopacy,  r  Yes — ■ 
as  Dr.  Maurice  shrewdly  and  keenly  remarks,*  "  If  the 
Presbyterian  parity  had  any  place  in  the  primitive  times, 
as  some  do  imagine,  it  must  needs  have  been  an  intolerable 
kind  of  government  J  since  all  on  a  sudden  it  was  universally 
abolished.  It  must  have  given  strange  occasion  of  offence 
when  all  the  Christian  churches  in  the  world  should  conspire 
to  abrogate  this  polity,  and  to  destroy  all  the  memory  and  foot- 
steps of  it.''"' 


LETTER    XIII. 


Sir, 


So  palpable  is  the  evidence  that  the  primitive  church 
was  Episcopal,  that  some  of  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  in 
modern  times  have  had  recourse  to  a  singular  hypothesis  to 
overthrow  it.  The  hypothesis  to  which  I  allude  is  that  of 
Congregational  Episcopacy.  The  advocates  of  this  plan  allow 
that  there  were  Bishops  in  the  primitive  church,  but  main- 
tain that  they  were  only  Bishops  of  a  single  congregation. 
They  allow  that  St.  James  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  that 
Ignatius  was  Bishop  of  Antioch,  that  Cyprian  was  Bishop 
of  Carthage.  But  they  maintain  that  in  those  cities,  and  in 
all  others  in  which  a  Bishop  was  placed  for  the  three  first 
centuries,  there  was  only  one  congregation !  This  scheme 
carries  on  its  face  its  refutation  !  It  is  incredible  that,  at  a 
period  when  Christianity  had  spread  itself  throughout  the 
world,  the  most  large  and  populous  cities  should  not  have 
contained  more  Christians  than  could  assemble  in  one  place 
for  worship.  In  the  Apostles'  times,  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
consisted  at  first  of  "  an  hundred  and  twenty  .'*'*]'   To  these  were 

*  Vindication  of  the  Government  of  the  Primitive  Cliurch,  in  answer 
to  Baxter,  p.  363,  369. 
t  Acts  i.  15. 


196  hobart's  apology 

added  "  about  three  thousand  souls^^^*  and  afterwards  "  men 
to  the  number  oi  Jive  thousand. ''^^^  "  Still  the  word  of  God 
increased,  and  the  number  of  disciples  multiplied  greatl}^  in 
Jerusalem, "J  until  at  length  the  Elders  addressed  Paul, 
"Thou  seest,  brother,  how  many  thousands  (myriads)  of 
Jews  there  are  which  believe. "§  It  is  impossible  that  these 
could  have  assembled  in  one  place  for  worship.  At  this  pe- 
riod too  Christians  held  their  public  service  in  private.  The 
number  of  congregations  must  therefore  have  been  very 
great.  In  each  of  these  congregations  there  must  have  been 
a  minister  to  conduct  its  worship.  Here  then  was  a  church? 
over  which  St.  James  evidently  presided,  consisting  of  seve- 
ral congregations  and  ministers. 

In  like  manner,  at  Antioch,  we  are  told  that  a  "  great 
number  believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord  ;"  ||  "  much  peo- 
ple were  added  unto  the  Lord."  IT  It  is  incredible  that  in 
this  large  and  populous  city,  the  greatest  city  in  the  East, 
where  the  converts  to  the  Gospel  increased  so  much,  that 
they  were  there  first  emboldened  to  throw  off  the  reproach- 
ful names  with  which  their  adversaries  had  designated  them, 
and  to  assume  the  name  of  Christians — it  is  incredible  that 
in  this  city  the  number  of  Christians  should  not  have  amount- 
ed to  more  than  could  assemble  in  one  place  for  worship ! 
And  yet  considerable  ingenuit}^  has  been  exercised  to  prove, 
by  affixing  a  literal  meaning  to  some  expressions  in  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  which  ought  to  be  understood  figura- 
tively, that  Ignatius,  who  was  the  Bishop  of  this  city,  was 
only  the  Pastor  of  one  congregation ! 

It  is  still  more  incredible  that  for  three  centuries  the  gos- 
pel should  have  made  so  little  progress,  that  in  the  city  of 
Carthage  and  its  vicinity  there  should  be  but  one  congrega- 
tion of  Christians.  And  yet  the  advocates  of  Congregational 
Episcopacy  have  contended  that  the  venerable  Cyprian,  the 

*  Acts  ii.  41.     t  Acts  iv.  4.     |  Acts  vi.  7.     §  Acts  xxi.  20. 
II  Acta  xi.  21.  11  Acts  xi.  24. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  197 

Bishop  of  Carthage  in  the  third  century,  was  only  the  Pastor 
of  a  single  congregation  ! 

To  spend  time  in  exposing  these  monstrous  suppositions, 
which  carry  with  them  their  own  refutation,  would  be  use- 
less. To  this  form  of  government,  indeed,  neither  the  Pres- 
byterian nor  Congregational  form  in  the  present  day  bears 
resemblance.  A  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  Bishop  is 
the  only  Pastor  in  the  congregation  who  has  the  ministry  of 
the  word  and  sacraments  ;  whereas  a  primitive  Bishop,  who 
some  opponents  of  Episcopacy  contend  was  only  the  Pastor 
of  one  congregation,  had  several  Presbyters  under  him,  who 
were  vested  with  all  the  ministerial  powers !  What  need 
could  Cyprian  have  had  of  several  Presbyters  ?  What  need 
could  Cornelius,  his  cotemporary  Bishop  of  Rome,  have 
had  of  forty-six  Presb3'ters  and  several  Deacons,  if  he  were 
the  Pastor  of  only  a  single  congregation  ? 

This  scheme  of  Congregational  Episcopacy,  the  invention 
of  Cartwright,  Clarkson,  and  Baxter,  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  is  as  hostile  to  Presbytery  as  it  is  to  Diocesan  Epis- 
copacy. It  makes  every  Pastor  and  his  congregation  an 
independent  church,  subject  to  no  higher  church  authority. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  only  calculated  to  generate  and  to  nou- 
rish heresy  and  schism,  but  it  flies  in  the  face  of  scripture 
testimony  ;  according  to  which  the  churches  were  governed 
by  a  council  of  "Apostles  and  Elders."*  It  is  therefore 
opposed  with  as  much  zeal  by  genuine  Presbyterians  as  by 
Episcopalians.  It  was  opposed  by  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly of  Divines  when  it  was  first  started,  and  has  ever  since 
been  opposed  by  the  advocates  of  Presbytery.  Mr.  M^Leod, 
in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  disclaims  it.  He  conclu- 
sively proves  that  the  term  Church  is  applied  not  only  to  a 
single  Pastor  and  his  congregation,  but  to  a  number  of  Pas- 
tors and  their  con2:reo;ations  united  too-ether  in  a  common 
church  judicatory  ;  and  that  this  church,  in  the  large  cities 

*  Acts  XV.  6. 
17* 


198  hobart's  apology 

of  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  &c.  consisted  of  Pastors  and  congre- 
gations thus  united.  With  him  indeed  the  bond  of  union  is 
a  Presbytery  ;  but  with  Churchmen,  a  superior  officer,  call- 
ed after  the  apostolic  age  by  the  appropriate  title  of  Bishop. 
Such  superior  officers  they  contend  were  St.  James  at  Jeru- 
salem^ and  Timothy  and  Titus  at  Ephesus  and  Crete. 

That  the  dioceses  or  seats  of  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  in 
the  primitive  church  embraced  several  Presbyters  and  their 
congregations,  has  been  incontestibl}^  proved  by  Dr.  Mau- 
rice, in  his  treatises  on  Diocesan  Episcopacy  against  Clark- 
son  and  Baxter,  and  by  the  learned  Bingham,  in  his  Ecclesi- 
astical Antiquities.  The  former  particularly  gives  an  account 
of  the  seats  of  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  during  the  first 
three  centuries,  and  proves  from  their  geographical  extent, 
their  population  and  other  circumstances,  that  they  included 
several  congregations  with  Presbyters  over  them. 

Grant  to  the  Episcopalian  that  the  supremacy  of  Bishops 
prevailed  throughout  the  primitive  church  in  the  third  or 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  and  he  contends  that  this  is 
sufficient  evidence  of  its  being  an  apostolic  institution  :  and 
for  this  obvious  reason  ;  the  Apostles  certainly  constituted  a 
ministry  in  the  church.  This  supremacy  of  Bishops  there- 
fore must  have  been  either  of  apostolic  institution,  or  it  must 
have  been  an  innovation  or  usurpation.  If  it  had  been  an 
innovation  or  usurpation  on  apostolic  order,  it  could  not  have 
received  universal  sanction  at  a  period  so  near  the  apostolic 
age,  without  opposition.^  and  without  the  most  explicit  and 
marked  record  of  so  extraordinary  a  change  or  usurpation. 
But  no  such  record  appears  ;  no  tradition  even  of  any  such 
event  is  mentioned  in  any  of  the  writers  of  the  three  first 
centuries.  No  such  change  or  usurpation,  therefore,  could 
have  taken  place  in  the  constitution  of  the  primitive  church. 
The  supremacy  of  Bishops,  therefore,  which  universally  pre- 
vailed in  the  third  or  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  could 
not  have  been  an  innovation  or  usurpation.  It  must,  there- 
fore, have  been  an  apostolic  institution. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  199 

This  reasoning  is  irrefragable.  It  is  worthy  of  further 
developement  and  consideration. 

The  concessions  of  Blondel,  Ci-iamier,  Bochart,  and 
other  Presbyterian  writers,  would  authorize  me  in  assuming 
the  second  century  as  the  era  of  the  universal  prevalence  of 
the  supremac}^  of  Bishops  in  the  church.  But  let  the  age  of 
Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  in  the  third  century,  be 
assumed  as  the  era  when  Episcopacy  universally  prevailed  in 
the  church.  There  is,  indeed,  irrefragable  proof  of  the  dis- 
tinction and  subordination  of  the  three  grades  of  the  ministry, 
and  of  the  supremacy  of  Bishops,  with  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, in  the  time  of  Cyprian.  In  the  church  of  Carthage,  of 
which  Cyprian  was  Bishop,  he  enumerates  at  least  eight 
Presbyters.  It  has  been  already  stated,  that  Cornelius,  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  who  was  cotemporary  with  Cyprian,  had 
under  him  forty-six  Presbyters,  and  seven  Deacons.  The 
Bishop  in  the  age  of  Cyprian,  was  advanced  from  the  degree 
of  Presbyter  by  a  neio  ordination*     Blondel  and   Salma- 

*  The  following  proof  of  this  fact  is  taken  from  Dr.  Bow^^n's  first  let- 
ter to  Dr.  Stiles  :  "  St.  Cyprian  was  first  a  Presbyter,  and  then  or- 
dained Bishop  of  Carthage,  according  to  his  Deacon  Pontius,  Eusebius, 
and  St.  JEROME.f  Thus,  St.  Cyprian  tells  us,  that  «  Cornelius  had 
advanced  gradually  through  all  the  inferior  stations  before  he  was  a 
Bishop ;  and  when  he  was  promoted  to  the  See  of  Rome,  sixteen  Bishops 
attended  his  ordination.  Ep.  Iv.  p.  103-112. '"  "  Nay,  the  necessity  of  a 
new  ordination  for  raising  one  to  the  Episcopal  dignity  was  so  notorious, 
that  the  schismatics  themselves  believed  it  indispensable,  as  appears  from 
the  story  of  Novatian,  who  was  a  Presbyter.  When  he  contended  with 
Cornelius  for  the  See  of  Rome,  he  got  three  simple  country  Bishops  to 
come  to  the  city,  and  having  intoxicated  them,  forced  them  to  give  him 
the  Episcopal  mission  by  an  imaginary  and  vain  imposition  of  hands. 
(Euseb.  1.  6.  c.  43.)  Thus  also  Fortunatus,  one  of  the  five  Presbyters 
who  joined  with  the  schismatical  Felicissimus,  and  who  set  himself  up 
as  an  anti-Bishop  at  Carthage,  was  ordained  by  five  false  Bishops.  (Ep. 
lix.  p.  113.) 

"  Now,  if  a  Bishop  in  St.  Cyprian's  time  was  no  more  than  a  Presby- 
ter, what  need  was  there  of  so  much  work  about  him .''  Why,  for  exam-i 
pie,  convene  all  the  Bishops  of  the  province  for  the  ordination  of  a  Pres- 
t  "  Pontius  in  vita  Cyp. — Euseb.  Chron. — Hierome  Catal." 


200  hobart's  apology 

sius,  two  of  the  most  distinguished  opponents  of  Episcopa- 
cy, acknowledge,  that  in  the  "  time  of  Cyprian  (and  long 
before  it,  ever  since  the  distinction  was  made  between 
Bishops  and  Presb3^ters,)  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were  pro- 
moted by  distinct  ordinations^  and  made  distinct  colleges. ^^  *  It 
is,  however,  conceded  on  all  hands,  that  the  supremacy  of 
Bishops  universally  prevailed  in  the  church  in  the  time  of 
EusEBius  and  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  next  century  after 
Cyprian.  Had  it  not  also  prevailed  in  the  time  of  Cyprian, 
we  should  find  in  them  some  record  of  the  fact. 

Take  then  the  third  century  as  the  period  when  Episco- 
pacy universally  prevailed  in  the  church.  Its  establishment 
must  have  been  by  apostolic  institution^  or  by  innovation  and 

byterin  Carthage,  where  there  were  eight  Presbyters  at  least  to  have  per- 
formed the  business?  Why  was  there  a  convention  of  sixteen  Bishops  to 
ordain  the  Presbyter  Cornelius  Bishop  of  Rome,  when  there  were  forty- 
six  Presbyters  in  that  city .'  Further,  Were  not  Cornelius  and  Nova- 
TiANUs  Presbyters  of  Rome  before  Wie  former  was  the  true,  and  the  lat- 
ter the  false  Bishop  of  that  city?  If  so,  what  need  of  a  new  election, 
and  a  new  ordination  of  Presbyters  of  a  church  of  which  they  were  Pres- 
byters already  ?  How  superlatively  ridiculous  must  it  have  been,  to  have 
seen  two  eminent  men,  already  Presbyters  of  Rome,  making  so  much 
work  about  being  made  Presbyters  of  Rome  ?  And  all  the  clergy  and  the 
people  of  Rome,  nay,  sooner  or  later  all  the  Christian  world,  engaged  in 
the  quarrel  ?  What  had  this  been  but  the  very  quintessence  of  folly  and 
nonsense  ?" 

*  Bishop  Sage,  in  proof  of  the  above,  quotes,  in  his  Vindication  of 
the  Principles  of  the  Cyprianic  Age,  the  following  passages  from  Blon- 
DEL  and  Salmasius  :  "  Formam  a  precedente  (n.  forma,  qua  promove 
bantur  Episcopi)  aliam,  analogia  eadem  semper  manente  (ex  quo  dis- 
tinctis  cleri  gradibus,  diversa  Episcoporum  et  Presbyterorum  collegia 
instituere  per  ecclesiam  visum  est)  inducere  necesse  fuit."    ApoL  p.  162. 

"  Ubi  distingui  ordines  et  gradus  caepti  sunt,  atque  Episcopus  major 
extitit  Presbytero,  tum  ordinatio  non  potuit  esse  utriusque  communis : 
Ut  enim  major  ordinat  minorem,  superior  inferiorem,  ita  e  contra- 
rio,  minor  ordinare  majorem  non  potest,  neque  inferior  superiorem: 
Inde  igitur  postquam  minor  Episcopo  factus  est  Presbyter,  ex  ordinum 
discretione,  non  potuit  minor  ordinare  majorem,  hoc  est,  Presbyter  Epis- 
copum.  Sic  Episcopo  ordinatio  propria  facta  est,  et  ad  Presbyterum 
desiit  pertinere,  quia  Presbyter  destitit  esse  Episcopus."  Wal.  Mess,  p- 
288,  299. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  201 

usurpation.  The  opponents  of  Episcopacy  assert  that  Epis- 
copacy is  an  innovation  or  usurpation  which  took  place  at 
some  period  within  the  three  first  centuries.  This  innovation 
or  usurpation  is  incredible.,  for  the  following  reasons. 

The  piety  of  the  primitive  church  forbids  the  supposition. 
The  Fathers  of  the  three  first  centuries,  whatever  were  their 
talents  or  their  learning,  were  good  men.  They  glorified 
their  Saviour  in  the  midst  of  flames  and  tortures  ;  they  laid 
down  their  life  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus.  Would  these  holy 
martyrs  have  permitted  the  ministry  instituted  by  their 
Lord  and  his  blessed  Apostles  to  be  fundamentally  altered } 
Would  they  have  basely  violated  the  institutions  of  their 
Saviour } 

There  would  have  been  no  possible  motive  to  this  usur- 
pation. 

Allowing  that  the  primitive  Fathers  were  bad  men ;  men 
swayed  solely  by  inordinate  ambition  and  lust  of  power.  In 
the  primitive  church  there  was  no  food  for  these  passions. 
During  the  first  ages  persecution  stretched  his  bloody  sceptre 
over  the  church.  Christians  served  their  Saviour  with  their 
tears  and  with  their  blood.  The  stations  of  authority  aflforded 
no  attractions  of  wealth  or  honour.  They  were  the  sure  paths 
to  the  dungeon,  to  the  rack  and  to  the  stake.  Those  who 
filled  them  were  marked  as  the  first  and  most  worthy  objects 
of  the  rage  of  those  tyrants  who  hoped  to  drown  the  church 
in  the  blood  of  her  children.  It  would  be  the  height  of  folly 
to  suppose,  that  under  such  circumstances  an}^  Presbyters, 
however  inordinate  their  ambition,  w^ould  seek  distinction  on 
the  rack  and  at  the  stake,  would  usurp  stations  where  relent- 
less persecution  would  inevitably  assail  them. 

There  were  insuperable  difficulties  to  the  eflfecting  of  this 
alleged  innovation  or  usurpation. 

Admitting  that  there  were  Presbyters  in  the  primitive 
church  wicked  enough  to  form  a  plan  of  usurpation,  and/oo/- 
ish  enough  thus  to  court  dangers  and  death,  how  was  the 
usurpation  to  be  effected }     By  intrigue  }     Intrigue  requires 


202  hobart's  apology 

concert  in  planning,  and  length  of  time  for  operation.  But  this 
usurpation  must  have  been  universally  effected  at  a  time  when 
Christianity  had  extended  itself  throughout  the  world.  And 
could  that  concert^  which  is  necessary  to  devising  and  suc- 
cessfully prosecuting  any  plan  of  difficult  intrigue,  have 
taken  place  among  Presbyters  scattered  through  distant  re- 
gions, at  a  period  too  when  there  were  no  general  councils 
which  collected  together  the  deputies  of  the  churches  }  Was 
there  time  for  devising  and  executing  a  plan  of  intrigue  which 
subverted  the  apostolic  ministry  within  a  short  period  after 
the  apostolic  age  ? 

Could  the  usurpation  have  been  effected  by  violence^  or  by 
the  force  of  authority  ?  But  the  usurping  Presbyters  had 
neither  the  wealth  nor  the  power  of  the  world  to  aid  them  in 
their  ambitious  projects  ;  nor  were  there  any  general  coun- 
cils to  enforce  this  usurpation  by  an  authoritative  decree. 
Without  any  adequate  means,  these  usurpers  were  to  contend 
against  the  institutions  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  against  a 
ministry  endeared  to  the  hearts  of  Christians  as  the  divinely 
commissioned  servants  of  their  Master.  Yes — whether  in- 
trigue or  authoritij  were  the  weapons  of  usurpation,  these 
usurping  Presbyters  had  to  contend  against  the  attachment 
of  the  great  body  of  Christians  to  the  form  of  a  ministry  bear- 
ing the  sacred  seal  of  apostolic  authority.  Say  you  the  pri- 
mitive Christians  were  careless  about  violating  apostolic 
institutions  !  What !  did  not  a  difference  of  opinion  concern- 
ing the  apostolic  tradition  of  the  time  of  observing  Easter 
throw  them  into  the  most  serious  disputes  and  schisms  .'* 
Must  they  not  have  cherished  with  infinitely  greater  reve- 
rence that  ministry  which,  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  had 
embodied  itself  with  their  religion,  with  every  service  and 
solemnity  of  the  church,  with  their  dearest  hopes  ?  These 
usurping  Presbyters  also  had  to  contend  against  the  love  of 
power  in  their  fellow  Presbyters ;  against  that  sacred  at- 
tachment to  the  authority  which  they  possessed,  founded  on 
the  conviction  that  it  was  a  deposit  intrusted  to  them   by 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  203 

their  divine  Master.  Would  not  an  usurpation  effected  un- 
der such  circumstances,  not  in  one  particular  province  but 
throughout  all  nations,  not  advancing  gradually  in  strength 
and  extent  through  the  lapse  of  several  centuries,  but  rising 
into  full  maturity,  and  stretching  its  iniquitous  sceptre  over 
the  whole  world  in  less  than  two  centuries  after  the  apostolic 
age — would  not  such  an  usurpation  be  without  a  parallel, 
contrary  to  common  sense,  to  every  principle  of  human  na- 
ture, to  the  voice  of  universal  experience  ? 

Nor  could  this  change  in  the  government  of  the  church 
have  been  effected  hj  general  consent. 

The  supposition  of  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  is,  that  the 
Apostles  left  the  church,  under  Presbyterian  government, 
subject  to  common  councils  of  Presbyters,  without  any  higher 
order.  Is  it  credible  then  that  a  government  instituted  by 
the  inspired  Apostles  should,  in  a  short  time,  prove  so  defect- 
ive or  intolerable  as  to  compel  both  Presbyters  and  Laity 
throughout  the  Christian  world  to  change  this  government  ? 
What  is  the  alleged  reason  of  this  change  ?  The  divisions 
among  Christians — the  people  saying,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of 
Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  every  Presbyter  ranking  as  his 
own  disciples  those  whom  he  had  baptized.  Is  it  credible 
that  the  people  and  the  Presbyters  should  imiversally  consent 
to  correct  their  own  inflamed  party  zeal,  and  curb  their  own 
inordinate  ambition  }  Is  it  credible  ''  that  the  Presbyters, 
while  they  were  thus  fond  of  raising  their  own  names,  met 
together  in  order  to  remedy  this  which  they  themselves  were 
fond  of,  and  did  unanimously  agree  upon  a  method  to  remedy 
it  ?"  Is  it  credible  "  that  the  laity,  while  they  were  thus 
addicted  to  particular  Presbyters,  did  quietly,  and  without 
any  opposition  acquiesce  in  what  was  prescribed  for  the 
remedj^ng  of  an  evil  which  they  did  not  desire  should  be 
remedied  ?  A  matter  too  absurd,  one  would  think,  to  be 
believed  by  any  who  know  any  thing  about  human  na- 
ture."* 

*   Bishop   HOADLEY. 


204  hobart's  apology 

Some  of  the  virtuous  Presbyters  may  indeed  have  formed 
a  plan  for  checking  this  ambitious  and  disorganizing  spirit ; 
and  some  of  the  most  considerate  among  the  laity  may  have 
been  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  it.  But  how  could  this  plan 
have  been  carried  into  effect  universally ^  in  distant  and  remote 
parts  of  the  world  ?  No  general  council  having  met,  there 
could  not  have  been  any  general  concert  in  devising  an  uni- 
form system,  nor  any  general  authority  to  enforce  what  must 
have  been  a  most  unpopular  change.  Is  it  credible  that  the 
ambitious  Presbyters,  and  schismatic  laity  who  must  have 
been  the  multitude^  inflamed  as  they  must  have  been  by  pride 
and  party  zeal,  would  universally  and  peaceably  acquiesce 
in  measures  to  curb  their  power  and  abridge  their  liberties, 
would  consent  to  exalt  into  a  superior  station  a  prime  Pres- 
byter, or  Bishop,  who,  trampling  on  the  equal  rights  of  Pres- 
byters, would  appear  on  his  unhallowed  throne  as  a  tjTant 
and  usurper  i  What  reasons,  what  persuasions,  nay,  what 
violence  could  reach  over  remote  and  distant  nations,  and 
silence  the  voice  and  the  arm  of  Presbyters  and  people  ex- 
erted in  the  defence  of  their  power  and  privileges,  exerted 
in  defence  of  rights  secured  to  them  by  apostolical  institu- 
tion }  What  voice  mighty  enough  to  say  to  the  tempest  of 
religious  phrensy  roused  in  defence  of  popular  right  sanc- 
tioned by  apostolic  authority — Peace,  be  still !  Instances 
indeed  there  have  been  of  the  people,  in  some  one  nation 
long  tossed  on  the  billows  of  anarchy,  at  length  quietly  sink- 
ing into  the  calm  of  despotism.  But  here  was  an  instance 
of  a  revolution  peaceably  acquiesced  in  throughout  the 
world,  by  those  whose  ambition,  whose  pride,  whose  just 
rights  it  subverted — a  revolution  so  complete  and  universal 
as  to  leave  not  a  vestige  of  the  apostolic  institutions,  the 
overthrow  of  which  it  had  accomplished  !  Impossible — that 
Presbyters  and  people  would  part  with  rights  and  institutions 
bearing  the  seal  of  apostolic  authority,  and  consecrated  by 
the  blood  of  martyrs  !  "  Never  was  any  matter  of  fact 
parallel  to  this  known  in  history ;  unless  it  be  that  there  are 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  205 

many  persons  of  later  ages  who  can  greedil}'^  believe  such  an 
improbable  conjecture  as  certain  truth,  without  one  competent 
express  testimony  to  support  it.  Let  us  put  any  of  these 
persons  themselves  into  the  place  of  the  primitive  Presbyters^ 
governing  the  churches  by  their  common  councils ;  knowing 
that  they  were  left  in  this  office,  and  directed  how  to  perform 
it  by  the  Apostles  themselves  ;  affecting  to  have  disciples 
called  by  their  own  names — and  we  may  make  themselves 
judges  whether  they  would  voluntarily  and  professedly  have 
met  together  with  a  design  of  remedying  their  own  vanity ; 
whether  they  would  have  done  this  by  divesting  themselves 
of  the  exercise  of  powers  to  which  th^y  had  been  called  by 
the  Apostles  themselves.  Nay,  whether  if  they  had  been 
outvoted  in  this  matter,  they  would  have  silently  yielded 
without  so  much  as  alleging  for  themselves  the  just  plea 
which  they  would  have  had  against  this  alteration,"  that  it 
was  a  violation  of  apostolic  institutions.  "  That  this  great 
alteration  should  be  contrived  and  effected,  and  universally 
submitted  to,  by  the  very  persons  whose  designs  and 
humours  and  vain  affectation  it  was  ordained  to  remedy,  and 
put  a  stop  to,  is  the  strangest  and  most  unaccountable  thing 
imaginable."* 

But  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  will  concede  all  that  can 
be  required  of  them.  They  will  concede  that  such  a  change 
was  practicable  ;  that  it  could  have  been  effected  by  general 
consent,  or  by  gradual  usurpation. 

Still  it  is  incredible  that  this  change  or  usurpation  in  the 
government  and  ministry  of  the  church  was  actually  effected, 
because  there  is  no  explicit  and  satisfactory  record  or  account 
of  it. 

Whether  effected  by  violence,  by  gradual  usurpation,  or 
by  general  consent,  it  would  have  been  a  fundamental 
change — a  change  that  would  have  entirely  altered  the  fea- 
tures of  the  church.  It  would  have  constituted  a  new  and 
marked  era  in  her  history.  We  would  surely  expect  to  find 
*  Bishop  Hoadley's  Defence  of  Episcopal  Ordination. 
18 


206  hobart's  apology 

in  cotemporary  writers  some  notices  of  an  event,  one  of 
the  most  extraordinary  that  could  have  occurred.  But  we 
search  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  tliree  first  centuries. 
Not  even  any  faint  traces  of  this  change  or  usurpation  is  to 
be  found  in  them.  The  venerable  Ignatius,  the  disciple  of 
the  Apostle  St.  John  ;  Ireneus,  the  disciple  of  Polycarp, 
the  cotemporary  of  Ignatius  ;  Clemens  of  Alexandria  ;  and 
the  celebrated  Tertullian,  all  of  whom  flourished  in  the 
second  century,  afford  us  no  light  in  tracing  this  change  or 
usurpation,  in  ascertaining  either  its  gradual  advances  or  the 
bold  and  sudden  assault  by  which  it  subverted  apostolic 
order,  and  mounted  to  universal  dominion.  Equally  silent 
as  to  this  most  momentous  occurrence  are  Origen  and 
Cyprian,  Fathers  of  the  third  century.  But  perhaps  Euse- 
Bius,  the  historian  of  the  fourth  century,  affords  irrefragable 
evidence  of  it.  Alas !  Eusebius,  to  whom,  even  if  every 
record  of  preceding  times  had  been  swept  away,  tradition 
would  have  handed  down  some  account  of  this  memorable 
innovation  on  apostolic  order,  is  silent  concerning  it.  He 
gives  not  the  most  distant  hint  that  the  supremacy  of  Bishops, 
which  was  universal  in  his  day,  had  any  other  origin  than 
apostolic  institution.  The  "  famous  testimony  of  Jerome  " 
is  the  *'  forlorn  hope  "  of  those  who  impeach  Episcopacy  as 
an  innovation.  And  lo  !  when  we  open  Jerome,  we  find  his 
"  famous  testimony"  is  a  matter  of  opinion^  and  that  in  many 
passages  he  expressly  records  the  apostolic  institution  of  the 
supremacy  of  Bishops.  But  were  the  testimony  of  Jerome 
clear  as  "  the  sun  shining  in  his  strength,"  it  would  not  be 
worthy  of  a  moment's  credit,  standing  as  it  does  single,  and 
unsupported  even  by  any  faint  hint  of  those  writers  who 
lived  nearer  to  the  period  of  this  alleged  change,  and  some 
of  whom  must  have  been  cotemporary  with  it. 

Suppose,  sir,  that  the  whole  Christian  world  were  now 
bending  under  the  gentle  sway  of  Presbytery — that  the  con- 
viction was  universal,  that  this  "  is  the  true  and  only  govern- 
ment which  God  has  prescribed  in  his  word."     By  what  in- 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  207 

trigue,  by  what  violence,  by  what  magic  could  Presbyterians 
throughout  the  world  be  induced  or  compelled  to  exchange 
their  divinely  constituted  government  for  the  yoke  of  an  usur- 
ping Prelacy  ?  By  what  intrigue,  by  what  violence,  by  what 
magic  could  the  Moderators  of  Presbyteries  wrest  from  these 
Presbyteries  the  power  of  ordination,  and  persuade  Presby- 
terians throughout  the  world  to  admit,  as  valid.  Episcopal 
ordination  only  ?  Still  greater  would  be  the  prodigy  that 
this  unparalleled  revolution  should  be  effected,  and  yet  find 
no  place  in  the  pages  of  cotemporary  writers  !  Say  not  that 
we  know  little  of  the  primitive  ages  of  the  church  ;  that  but 
few  of  the  writings  of  those  ages  have  survived  the  ravages 
of  time.  We  do  know  all  the  leading  events  of  the  primitive 
church  ;  we  possess  many  of  the  writings  of  her  early  Fathers. 
They  narrate  comparatively  trifling  changes  and  schisms. 
Would  they  have  been  silent  concerning  one,  compared  with 
which  all  others  are  but  as  the  petty  contentions  of  an  obscure 
village  to  a  revolution  that  shakes  empires,  and  changes  the 
destiny  of  the  world  ?* 

No,  sir,  the  rise  of  the  monster  Prelacy  would  have  been 
narrowly  watched  and  minutely  traced.  Envy,  jealousy, 
pride,  and  the  love  of  power  would  have  conspired  to  check 

*  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said,  that  the  art  of  printing  having  faci- 
litated the  means  of  communication,  Christians  could  in  modern  times 
be  more  speedily  and  effectually  roused  to  oppose  innovation;  and  the 
records  of  any  extraordinary  event  would  be  greatly  multiplied.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  printing  being  unknown  in  the  primitive  age,  any  change 
in  apostolic  order  which  took  place  in  one  part  of  the  Christian  world 
would  be  less  likely  to  be  speedily  known  or  adopted  in  other  parts  dis- 
tant and  remote.  There  is,  therefore,  from  this  circumstance,  more  dif- 
ficulty in  accounting  for  the  uniformity  in  this  change,  and  for  the  sud- 
denness of  its  accomplishment  through  every  part  of  the  Christian 
church.  But  the  fact  is,  many  of  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers 
are  still  extant ;  and  surely  there  could  have  been  no  event  which  they 
would  have  been  more  likely  to  record  than  a  change  in  apostolic  order, 
which,  whether  gradual  or  sudden,  whether  effected  by  general  consent 
or  usurpation,  must  have  impressed  them  most  forcibly,  and  in  some  way 
or  other,  insinuated  itself  into  their  writings. 


208  hobart's  apology 

his  usurpations,  and  to  proclaim  them  to  the  world.  Piety 
would  have  raised  a  rampart  to  his  unhallowed  designs  not 
easily  to  be  surmounted.  The  period,  however,  when,  ar- 
rived to  full  stature,  he  crushed  under  his  giant  arm  apostolic 
Presbytery,  would  have  been  marked  by  every  ecclesiastical 
writer  as  the  most  memorable  era  in  the  annals  of  the 
church. 

Say  not  that  Popery  affords  a  parallel  to  this  alleged  usur- 
pation of  Episcopacy.  The  advances  of  the  "  man  of  sin" 
are  scarcely  discernible  in  the  three  first  centuries.  The 
papal  pretensions  were  not  established  until  long  after  this 
period.  Secular  wealth  and  power  were  the  ladders  by 
which  he  mounted  to  pre-eminence.  His  pretensions  were 
promoted  and  enforced  by  general  councils.  His  usurpa- 
tions can  be  traced  in  the  faithful  page  of  history.  The  oppo- 
sition to  his  unfounded  pretensions  is  recorded.  And  it  was 
only  in  the  Western  Church  that  his  claims  to  supreme  pre- 
rogative were  respected.  The  numerous  and  extensive 
Eastern  or  Greek  Church  always  spurned  his  authority. 

But  by  the  confession  of  its  opponents.  Episcopacy  was 
universally  established  at  the  commencement  of  the  fourth 
century.  If  the  supremacy  of  Bishops  were  an  innovation 
or  usurpation,  it  must  have  been  effected  without  the  aid  of 
secular  wealth  or  power,  without  the  authoritative  influence 
of  general  councils.  Episcopacy  must  have  subverted  Pres- 
bj^tery  throughout  the  world,  at  a  time  when  not  more  than 
two  generations  had  passed  away  since  the  apostolic  age  ; 
when  some  persons  must  have  been  living  whose  forefathers, 
at  not  more  than  two  or  three  removes,  must  have  witnessed 
the  apostolic  institution  of  Presbytery  !  What  renders  the 
diflference  between  the  encroachments  of  Popery  and  the 
alleged  usurpations  of  Episcopacy  more  striking,  the  former 
are  distinctly  traced  by  cotemporary  writers  in  every  period 
of  their  gradual  progress  ;  and  the  pen  of  history  has  record- 
ed the  opposition  made  to  them,  and  the  struggles  by  which 
they  finally  triumphed.     But  of  the  innovations  or  usurpa- 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  209 

tions  of  Episcopacy,  cotemporary  writers  are  silent.  Even 
its  adversaries  are  compelled  to  fix  the  period  of  its  full 
growth  in  the  third,  or  commencement  of  the  fourth  century  ; 
and  preceding  or  cotemporary  writers  afford  no  light  as  to  its 
progress,  as  to  the  opposition  which  it  must  have  encoun- 
tered, or  the  means  by  which  it  marched  to  universal  domi- 
nion. Striking  also  is  the  difference  in  another  respect. 
While  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  triumphing  over  opposi- 
tion by  intrigue,  by  secular  influence,  by  authoritative  de- 
crees of  councils,  has  been  uniformly  rejected  by  the  exten- 
sive Eastern  of  Greek  Church,  Episcopacy^  in  three  centu- 
ries after  the  Apostles,  found  its  apostolic  institution  univer- 
sally acknowledged.  The  heretics  in  their  contests  with  the 
orthodox,  never  thought  of  returning  to  this  supposed  apos 
tolic  Presbytery,  but  deemed  it  essential  to  obtain  Bishops. 
In  the  unhappy  contests  that  often  attended  the  election  of 
Bishops,  no  one  ever  impeached  their  apostolic  supremacy, 
or  suggested,  as  a  remedy  for  the  convulsions  which  their 
election  occasioned,  that  primitive  Presbytery  from  which  it 
is  supposed  Christians  had  departed.  Not  one  church  was 
to  be  found  which  preserved  it.  Scattered  as  Christians 
were  through  distant  regions,  they  all  bowed  to  the  sway  of 
Episcopacy.  And  an  ambitious  and  disappointed  Presbyter,* 
who,  about  two  hundred  years  after  the  times  of  the  Apos- 
tles by  whom  it  is  supposed  Presbyterian  regimen  was  insti- 
tuted, presumed  to  deny  the  apostolic  supremacy  of  Bishops, 
was  branded  as  a  madman  !  ! 

This  then,  sir,  is  a  fact  which,  of  itself,  demonstrates  the 
apostolic  institution  of  Episcopacy.  According  to  the  unani- 
mous concession  of  its  opponents,  it  universally  prevailed  at 
the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century."!*  It  must  either 
have  originated  in  the  institution  of  the  Apostles  who  were 

*  Aerius,  who,  like  his  predecessor  Arius,  denied  the  divinity  of 
Christ. 

t  This  is  the  latest  period.  Many  of  the  most  learned  Presbyterians 
acknowledge  that  Episcopacy  prevailed  in  the  second  century. 

18* 


210  hobart's  apology 

divinely  commissioned  to  constitute  the  church,  or  it  must 
have  been  an  innovution  or  usurpation.  When,  how  was 
this  most  extraordinary  change  in  the  apostolic  constitution 
of  the  church  effected  ?  What  were  the  wonderful  causes 
that  could  lead  Presbyters  and  people,  throughout  the  Chris- 
tian world,  to  renounce  rights  and  prerogatives  vested  in 
them  by  the  Apostles,  and  to  submit  to  the  supremacy  of 
Bishops  ?  What  were  the  means  b}^  which  a  few  ambitious 
Presbyters  in  different  and  distant  regions,  in  an  age  when 
they  commanded  neither  wealth,  honour,  nor  power ;  when, 
persecuted  by  the  secular  arm,  they  lived  only  in  the  affec- 
tions of  the  people — what  were  the  means  by  which  they 
usurped  supreme  prerogative  and  crushed  opposition  ?  How 
could  this  usurpation,  even  if  effected  in  one  province,  have 
extended  -itself  throughout  the  world,  at  a  period  when  the 
secular  power  would  not  have  enforced  it,  when  there  was 
no  general  council  to  establish  it  ?  Above  all,  where  is  the 
explicit  and  irrefragable  record  in  cotemporary  writers  of  a 
change,  which,  if  effected  by  general  consent,  must  have  giv- 
en new  features  to  the  visible  church,  and  constituted  one  of 
its  most  memorable  eras  ?  Where  the  record  of  a  change, 
which,  if  effected  by  usurpation,  must  have  rallied  clergy 
and  people  around  their  just  rights,  consecrated  by  apostolic 
authority,  and  called  forth  at  least  from  some  one  degraded 
Presbyter  a  solemn  protest,  which,  sounding  loud  and  deep, 
would  have  been  heard  through  distant  climes  to  distant 
ages  ?  Where  the  "  voice  of  warning,"  which,  even  in 
this  degenerate  day,  poured  forth  the  alarm  in  Zion  when 
danger  only  remotely  threatened  her  sacred  cause  ?  Alas ! 
the  inhabitants  of  Zion  lay  locked  in  deadly  slumber.  The 
sentinels  on  her  sacred  ramparts  were  sleeping  at  their  posts. 
The  enemy  came.  No  blast  from  the  gospel  trumpet  swept 
over  Zion  to  rouse  her  members  to  defend  her  apostolic 
order.  Presbytery,  her  revered  pride  and  glory,  vanished 
as  "  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision."  A  corrupt  "Prelacy" 
raised  its  hideous   form.     Christians  throughout  the   world, 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  211 

who,  but  a  century  or  two  before,  had  received  Presbytery 
as  a  sacred  deposit  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as  if  touch- 
ed by  the  wand  of  enchantment,  fell  down  and  worshipped 
the  image  which  the  pride  and  ambition  of  usurping  prelates 
had  set  up  !  And,  more  astonishing  prodigy  still !  the  pen 
of  history  was  palsied,  and  left  to  future  ages  no  traces  of 
this  memorable  event!  The  man  who  believes  that  this 
astonishing  change  in  apostolic  order  could  have  been  uni- 
versally effected  within  a  short  period  of  the  apostolic  age, 
without  being  fully  and  deeply  recorded  in  the  writings  of 
that  period  which  are  now  extant,  is,  I  think,  prepared  to 
say,  that  all  the  Presbyteries  now  in  the  world  may  "lie 
down  and  sleep,  and  wake  up"  under  the  government 
of  Bishops,  and  no  record  appear  of  the  astonishing  phe- 
nomenon ! 


LETTER    XIV. 

Sir, 

Common  sense,  then,  indignantly  rejects  the  supposi- 
tion that  Episcopacy  is  an  innovation  or  usurpation  ;  it  must 
have  been  an  apostolic  institution. 

Episcopacy  being  thus  supported  by  scripture  and  anti- 
quity, every  Christian  is  bound  to  submit  to  it  as  the  institu- 
tion of  that  divine  and  supreme  Lawgiver  who  vested  the 
Apostles  with  authority  to  institute  a  ministry  to  be  continued 
by  succession  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Duty,  gratitude,  in- 
terest, all  forbid  the  believer  to  violate  any  of  the  institutions 
of  his  blessed  Lord  and  Master.  The  most  solemn  oWiga- 
tions,  the  most  powerful  motives,  urge  him  to  avoid  that 
"  gainsaying  of  Corah,"  that  rejection  of  the  authorized  minis- 
try of  the  church,  in  which  crime  the  Apostle*  represents 
some  Christians  as  "  perishing."  This  crime  the  believer 
*  Jude, 


212 


HOBART  S    APOLOGY 


with  certainty  avoids  while  he  communes  with  that  ministry 
which  even  its  opponents  concede  is  valid ;  and  which  sub- 
sists in  a  church  freed  from  papal  usurpations,  in  which  it  is 
possible  to  be  "  valiant  for  the  truth,"  and  to  "  exemplify 
all  the  loveliness  of  the  Christian  character."  In  commu- 
nion with  this  ministry  he  avoids  all  those  perplexing  doubts 
and  apprehensions  concerning  the  validity  of  those  ministra- 
tions by  which  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  are  to  be  sealed 
to  him,  which  no  prudent  man  would  choose  to  encounter, 
when  it  is  in  his  power  to  avoid  them.  True  believers,  when 
their  rejection  of  the  authorized  ministry  is  "  unavoidable  or 
involuntary,"  when  they  thus  sin  only  through  "  ignorance 
or  infirmity,"  will  be  accepted  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  "  who  bought  them  with  his  blood."  But  as  their 
obedience  would  be  greater,  may  we  not  conclude  their  re- 
wards in  heaven,  through  the  merits  of  their  Saviour,  will 
also  be  greater,  when  they  receive  the  "  seals  of  the  cove- 
nant" from  those  who  are  "lawfully  called"  to  administer 
them  ?* 

The  guilt  of  schism  and  the  duty  of  Christian  unity  are 
enforced  in  the  strongest  terms  by  our  blessed  Saviour  and 
his  Apostles.  It  was  the  prayer  of  our  blessed  Lord,  that 
his  church  might  be  one-I  There  is  but  "  one  body,"  of 
which  he  is  the  "head."  The  Apostle  Paul,  by  the  most 
striking  similitudes ,'1  by  the  most  affectionate  exhortations ^^ 
by  the  most  impressive  warnings^\\  inculcates  and  urges 
the  duty  of  preserving  the  unity  of  the  church,  and  of 
avoiding  the  guilt  of  schism.  The  unity  of  the  church  can 
be  preserved,  and  the  guilt  of  schism  avoided,  onty  hy  con- 
tinuing in  the  "  Apostles'  fellowship, "IT  by  communing  with 
that  ministry  who  derive  their  power  by  regular  transmission 
from  the  Apostles.     Such  a  ministry  (even  its  adversaries 

*  See  pages  65,  66.  f  John  xvii.  11. 

t  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  13,  27.     Eph.  iv.  3-6. 

§  1  Cor.  i.  10.     Phil.  ii.  1,  2.     Rom.  xv.  6.     2  Cor.  xiii.  11. 

II  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  4.     Gal.  v.  19,  20,  21.  IT  Acts  ii.  42. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  213 

being  judges)  is  the  Episcopal  ministry.  It  is  at  least  a 
disputed  pointy  whether  the  claims  of  any  other  ministry  be 
equally  good.  By  communing  then  with  the  Episcopal 
ministry,  the  believer  certainly  avoids  that  schism  so  solemnly 
denounced,  and  maintains  that  unit])  so  solemnly  enjoined,  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles.  He  certainly  avoids  those  divisions 
which  often  bring  in  "  heresy "  and  "  every  evil  work  ;" 
which  tend  to  alienate  from  each  other  the  followers  of  the 
same  adorable  Lord  ;  w  hich  furnish  the  enemies  of  the  gospel 
and  of  the  Protestant  faith  with  their  most  plausible  and 
popular  arguments  ;  and  which  exhibit  the  spiritual  Zion  as 
rent  and  divided,  the  scorn  of  her  enemies,  instead  of  being 
ONE  like  her  divine  Head,  at  unity  in  herself  and  the  joy  of 
the  whole  earth.* 

The  churchman  is  satisfied  even  from  the  concessions  of 
his  adversaries,  that  he  enjoys  a  valid  ministry  and  ordi- 
nances, that  he  maintains  Christian  unity,  and  avoids  the 
sin  of  schism.  The  doctrines  of  his  church,  as  contained 
in  the  articles  and  liturgy,  even  by  the  confessions  of  its 
opponents,  are  as  evangelical  as  its  ministry  is  apostolic.  It 
is  the  obvious  dictate  of  prudence  to  adhere  inflexibly  to  a 
church  which  he  is  assured  will  be  to  him  a  "  nursery  for 
the  church  in  heaven,"  provided  he  be  *'  diligent  in  making 
his  calling  and  election  sure,"  in  ''  adorning  the  doctrine  of 
God  his  Saviour  in  all  things." 

Where,  sir,  is  the  proof  of  your  boast,"!"  that  the  "  visible 
unity  of  the  church"  is  preserved  by  Presbyterian  regimen, 
by  "  perfect  equality  of  rank  among  her  ministers  .'"  Is  this 
proof  to  be  found   in  the   almost  infinite   number    of  sects 

*  The  above  argument  would  not  be  good  in  the  mouth  of  an  advo- 
cate of  Popery,  because  the  Papal  Church  prescribes  sinful  terms  of  com- 
munion* 

t  Christian's  Magazine,  Introduction,  p.  12,  13. 

*  Besides  Popery  itself  is  a  departure  from  the  commanded  unity  of 
the  apostolic  church ;  and  embodies  in  its  corrupt  system,  as  history 
shows,  the  most  prolific  elements  of  schism  — Ed. 


214  hobart's  apology 

which  sprung  from  Presbytery  in  the  time  of  Oliver  Crom- 
well ?*  Or  does  this  proof  exist  in  the  state  of  the  Pres- 
byterian churches  in  Scotland  or  in  this  country  ?  In  Scotland 
the  Seceders  are  a  numerous  body,  who  separated  from  the 
parent  churchy  charging  her  with  being  a  corrupt  church.  We 
find  there  that  Presbyterian  government  did  not  preserve  the 
visible  unity  of  the  church.  Was  unity  preserved  among 
these  Seceders,  who  carried  with  them  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment, "  perfect  equahty  of  rank  among  ministers  r"  In  the 
space  of  a  few  years  after  the  Secession  they  spUt  into  the 
two  sects  of  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers;  the  former  so 
called  from  their  submitting  to  what  is  called  the  Burgher 
oathj  which  the  latter  refuses  to  take,  as  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  the  Secession.  Here  then  are  three  distinct 
Presbyterian  churches,  who  formally  excommunicated  one 
another,  and  disclaim  all  church  fellowship  !  Admirable 
specimen  of  the  efficacy  of  Presbyterian  government  in  pre- 
serving the  visible  unity  of  the  church !  But  this  is  not  all. 
In  Scotland  there  is  a  fourth  Presbyterian  Church,  called 
the  Relief  Churchy  so  denominated  from  their  having  relieved 
themselves  from  the  patronage  b}'  which  livings  are  conferred 
in  the  established  church:  and,  last,  though  not  least  of  all, 
the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  commonly  called  Cove- 
nanters, who  boast  that  they  alone  maintain  the  genuine 
Presbyterian  principles,  and  are  the  purest  church  on  the  face 
of  the  earth. 

Perhaps  these  divisions  among  Presbyterians  are  merely 
localy  and  arise  from  some  peculiar  circumstances  in  Scot- 
landy  which  do  not  operate  in  America.  But  nearly  the 
same  divisions  are  found  among  Presbyterians  in  this 
country  as  subsist  in  Scotland.  In  this  country  there  are 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  corresponding  to  the  established 
Church  of  Scotland ;  the  Presbyterian  Associate  Church, 
connected   with   the    Presbyterian  Anti-Burgher  Church  of 

*  Edwards,  a  Presbyterian  divine,  gives  an  account  of  these  sects  in 
his  Gangrcena. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  216 

Scotland,  and  which  claims  at  least  the  merit  of  consis- 
tency in  adhering  strictly  to  the  original  principles  of  the 
Secession  ;  the  Presbyterian  Associate- Reformed  Church j'' 
maintaining  ecclesiastical  correspondence  with  the  Burgher 
Church  of  Scotland  ;  and  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church, 
corresponding  to  the  church  of  the  same  name  in  Scot- 
land and   Ireland. I     There    are   also   several   Presbyterian 

*  This  church,  of  which  you,  sir,  are  a  minister,  sprung  up  in  this 
country  about  thirty  years  ago,  by  the  union  of  some  of  the  ministers  and 
congregations  of  the  Associate  and  Reformed  churches, 

f  Of  this  church,  (whose  members  are  commonly  called  Coveanters, 
it  is  presumed  from  their  adhering  literally  to  "  the  solemn  league  and 
covEJN-ANT  "  by  which  Papacy  and  Prelacy  were  solemnly  abjured  in  Scot- 
land) Mr.  M'Leod  is  a  distinguished  minister  and  advocate.  They  pro- 
fess to  maintain,  in  greater  purity  than  other  sects,  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trines, and  the  divinely  instituted  form  of  Presbyterian  regimen.  And 
they  hold  the  singular  opinion,  on  the  subject  of  civil  government,  that 
only  "  Christian  rulers,  appointed  to  office  according  to  a  righteous  civil 
constitution,  have  authority  from  God  to  rule  in  subserviency  to  the  king- 
dom of  Christ,  and  are  to  be  conscientiously  supported."*  They  solemnly 
declare  in  their  standards,  that  "  Presbyterian  Covenanters  perceiving 
immorality  interwoven  vjith  the  general  and  states'  constitution  of  go- 
vernment in  America,  have  uniformly  dissented  from  the  civil  establish- 
ments."! Again :  "  There  are  moral  evils  essential  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  render  it  necessary  to  refuse  allegiance  to 
the  whole  system.  This  constitution  is,  notwithstanding  its  numerous 
excellences,  in  many  instances  inconsistent,  oppressive  and  impious."X 
Persons  who  hold  these  sentiments,  "  if  inconsistent  with  themselves 
doctrinally,  would  be  justified  in  rebelling  against  every  government  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.  In  fact,  in  this  country  they  go  so  far  in  what  I 
have  not  the  least  doubt  is  a  conscientious  profession  of  these  principles, 
as  uniformly  "  to  refuse  to  serve  in  any  office  which  implies  an  appro- 
bation of  the  constitution — to  abstain  from  giving  their  votes  at  elections 
for  legislators  or  officers  who  must  be  qualified  to  act  by  an  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  this  hninoral  system.  They  cannot  consistently  swear  allegiance 
to  that  government  in  the  constitution  of  which  there  is  so  much  immo- 
rality."?^ They  are  "  absolutely  prohibited  from  serving  on  juries,"  and 
even  from,  taking  an  oath  in  a  court  of  justice,  unless  "  the  men  in 
power"  will  admit  that "  this  oath  is  performed  voluntarily  to  the  Supreme 

*  Reformation  Principles,  Part  ii.  p.  106.  f  Part  i.  p.  134. 
X  p.  13G.  §  p.  137. 


216  hobart's  apology 

congregations  in  East-Jersey  and  New- York,  associated  un- 
der a  Presbj'tery  called  the  Morris  Presbytery,  and  who  are 
independent  of  the  authority-  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  as 
also  are  the  numerous  churches  in  New-England,  who, 
though  Congregational  in  their  form  of  government,  are  at 
present  Presbyterian  in  their  mode  of  ordination.  Here  now 
are  several  denominations  of  Presbyterians,  professing  subjec- 
tion to  distinct  ecclesiastical  judicatories,  and  some  of  them 
refusing  church  fellowship  with  the  others  !  When  the  Se- 
cession took  place  in  Scotland,  the  Seceders  were  solemnly 
excommunicated  by  the  Established  Church  ;  and  when  the 
Seceders  split   into  the  two  sects  of  Burghers   and   Anti- 

Being,  and  by  no  means  a  recog:nition  of  the  magistrate's  authority  !"* 
It  is  but  justice,  however,  to  observe,  that,  "  for  the  sake  of  peace  and 
good  order — from  a  spirit  of  resignation  to  the  divine  providence,  and  in 
order  to  make  legitimate  provision  for  themselves  or  their  relations,"  they 
acknowledge  that  "  so  much  conformity  to  the  prevailing  system  as  is 
consistent  with  the  oath  of  their  allegiance  to  the  Messiah,  is  a  duty  con- 
scientiously to  be  practised,  although  very  distinct  from  that  obedience 
for  conscience  sake  which  they  would  render  to  the  government  of  their 
choice,  to  the  authority  which  has  the  sanction  of  the  divine  appro-^ 
bation."t 

I  mention  all  these  particulars  not  for  your  information,  sir,  but  for 
the  sake  of  "  unlearned"  readers.  And  I  am  sorry  to  be  compelled  to 
observe,  that  a  more  unjust  philippic  against  the  civil  governments, 
against  all  denominations  of  Christians,  and  particularly  against  Episco- 
palians, never  came  from  the  pen  of  an  ignorant  religious  zealot  in  the 
most  ignorant  tinges,  than  that  drawn  up,  it  is  presumed,  by  Mr.  M'Leod, 
a  scholar  and  a  gentleman,  and  a  Christian  clergyman  "  in  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century,"  and  published  by  the  Presbytery  of  his  church 
under  the  sacred  title  of  an  Historical  View.  The  attacks  made  in  that 
work,  and  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  on  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country,  and  on  the  venerable  Church  of  England,  extolled  by  the 
Reformers  as  the  bulwark  of  the  Reformation,  and  now  "  standing  be- 
tween the  dead  and  the  living,"  and,  through  the  grace  of  God,  *'  staying 
the  plague"  of  infidelity  which  threatened  to  sweep  the  earth,  warrant 
and  invite  an  unrestrained  examination  of  his  own  principles. 

*  Reformation  Principles,  Part  ii.  p.  135,  136 

t  Mr.  M'Leod's  sermon,  entitled,  "  Messiah,  Governor  of  the  Nations 
of  the  Earth,"  p   43 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  217 

BurgherSjthey  excommunicated  each  other.  In  like  manner, 
when,  in  this  country,  some  of  the  ministers  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  consisting  chiefly  of  Anti-Burghers,  seceded  from 
that  Presbytery,  and,  in  conjunction  with  some  of  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Reformed  Presbytery ,  formed  a  new  church  under 
the  denomination  of  the  Associate-Reformed  Church  (of 
which  you  are  a  minister,)  sentences  of  excommunication 
were  formerly  passed.  The  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Pres- 
bytery who  joined  (what  for  the  sake  of  conciseness  I  may  be 
suffered  to  call)  your  church,  were  considered  by  those  whom 
they  left,  by  Mr.  M'Leod  and  his  brethren,  as  '' guilty  of 
apostacy  ;"*  as  having  "  under  pretence  of  repairing  a  breach 
which  they  had  no  hand  in  making,  in  spite  of  their  profes- 
sion and  their  vows,  made  anew  schismhy  their  own  volun- 
tary act. "I  And  your  church  is  accused  by  Mr.  M'Leod 
and  his  brethren  with  having  ^^  forsaken  the  secession  testi- 
mony in  very  important  principles."  Of  the  constitution  of 
the  very  respectable  body  commonly  called  the  "  Pres- 
byterian Church"  in  this  country,  Mr.  M'Leod  and  his 
brethren  thus  speak  :  "  In  this  constitution  were  laid  those 
seeds  of  discordant  principles  and  general  debility  which  have 
since  characterized  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country, 
under  the  direction  of  a  General  Assembly. '^^t  Alas,  Sir,  the 
Associate  Churchy  your  own  church  called  the  Associate- 
Reformed  Churchy  Mr.  M'Leod's  church  styled  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church  or  Covenanters^  though  all  good 
Presbyterians,  do  not  hold  fellowship  with  one  another 
in  "sealing  ordinances,"  nor  with  the  Presbyterian  Church 
commonly  so  called.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  dispute  your  light 
of  dissent.  God  forbid  that  it  should  be  wrested  from  you, 
or  that  I  should  doubt  your  being  conscientious  in  the  exer- 
cise of  it.  But  let  me  ask,  am  I  to  find  in  these  schisms 
proof  that  Presbyterian  government  preserves  church  unity  ? 

*  Reformation  Principles,  Part  i.  p.  119. 
t  Reformation  Principles,  Part  i.  p.  119. 
X  Reformation  Principles,  Part  i.  p.  103. 
19 


218  hobart's  apology 

Or  do  they  afford  evidence  that  this  "  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment combines  the  visible  unity  of  the  church  Catholic  with 
perfect  equality  of  rank  among  her  ministers  ?  "* 

Are  such  divisions  to  be  found  among  Episcopalians  ?  Is 
this  detested  "  Prelacy"  the  parent  of  such  endless  schisms  ? 
When  any  Episcopal  Presbyters  are  desirous  to  erect  a  new 
communion,  they  cease  to  be  Episcopalians  when  they  be- 
come schismatics,  and  unless  they  can  get  a  Bishop  to  head 
their  schism,  necessarily  have  recourse  to  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation. With  Episcopal  schismatics,  the  difficulty  will  be  to 
perpetuate  the  Episcopal  succession.  I  do  not  pretend  that 
Episcopacy  is  an  infallible  security  against  schism  ;  that  it 
would  be  impracticable  for  schismatic  Episcopal  Presbyters 
to  procure  a  Bishop  and  to  devise  means  of  perpetuating  the 
Episcopal  succession.  But  I  contend  that  there  would  be 
greater  obstacles  in  their  Avay  than  under  the  Presbyterian 
regimen.  For  when  three  or  four  Presbyterian  ministers 
deem  it  proper  to  establish  a  new  church,  they  have  only 
to  constitute  themselves  a  Presbyter}',  and  they  instantly  be- 
come as  good  Presbyterians  as  those  they  leave,  perhaps 
even  more  pure,  more  refined,  more  zealous.  Candidly,  Sir, 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  in  what  way  Presbyterian  government 
tends  to  preserve  "  the  visible  unity  of  the  church  Catholic ;" 
and  why,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  not  perfectly  compatible 
"  with  rending  the  body  of  Christ  at  pleasure,"  with  schisms 
and  divisions  without  end.| 

Episcopacy  then,  as  the  instituted  mode  by  which  the  mi- 
nisterial commission  is  conveyed  from  the  great  Head  of  the 
church,  and  as  the  bond  of  Christian  unity,  claims  the  obe- 
dience of  all  Christians.  Considered  as  a /orwi  of  government y 
it  has  at  least  equal  claims  with  Presbytery.     The  essentials 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  Introduction,  p.  12,  13. 

t  After  this  view  of  Presbyterian  unity,  we  must  surely  be  amused 
to  hear  Mr.  M'Leod  seriously  declaring  that  "the  universal  prevalence 
of  real  Presbyterianism  can  alone  render  Jerusalem  a  quiet  habita- 
tion:'* 

*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  129. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  319 

of  Episcopacy  being  only  the  preservation  of  the  three  grades 
of  the  ministry  with  their  appropriate  powers,  it  admits  in  the 
structure  of  its  government  of  such  modifications  as  may 
adapt  it  to  the  different  circumstances  of  the  church,  and  to 
the  varying  forms  of  civil  policy.  The  insinuation  sometimes 
made,  that  there  is  a  peculiar  connection  between  Episcopacy 
and  monarch])^  is  as  false  as  its  design  is  uncandid  and  unge- 
nerous. In  Great-Britain,  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery  are 
both  established  by  law  in  different  parts  of  the  nation;  and 
1  never  heard  that  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland  were  less 
loyal  than  the  Episcopalians  of  England.  - 

In  this  country  there  is  a  striking  resemblance  between 
the  structure  of  Episcopal  government  and  that  of  the  civil 
polity.  In  every  diocese  the  Bishop  presiding  over  it  cor- 
responds to  the  Governor  or  supreme  executive  officer  of 
each  state.  Though  he  receives  his  Episcopal  commission 
from  the  Bishops  who  ordained  him,  he  is  elected  by  the 
clergy  and  laity,  who  thus  possess  the  security  that  no  per- 
son shall  be  exalted  over  them  as  Bishop  who  is  obnoxious 
to  them.  In  the  discharge  of  his  executiv^e  functions,  and  in 
the  administration  of  discipline,  the  Presbj-ters  are  considered 
as  his  Council ;  corresponding  to  the  Councils  in  some  of  the 
states,  or  to  the  Senate  in  the  general  government,  who  are 
associated  with  the  chief  magistrate  in  the  exercise  of  the 
executive  authority.  Though  he  alone  confers  the  ministe- 
rial commission,  yet  he  can  ordain  no  one  who  has  not  been 
previously  approved  and  recommended  by  some  of  the  clergy 
and  laity.  The  convention,  (consisting  of  the  clergy  and 
delegates  from  each  congregation)  in  which  the  Bishop  pre- 
sides, and  in  which  the  local  concerns  of  each  diocese  are 
regulated,  answers  to  the  legislative  bodj^  of  each  state.  The 
general  convention,  or  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the 
church,  has  been  organized  upon  that  judicious  principle  of 
dividing  power ^  and  placing  it  in  different  houses,  upon  which 
the  civil  constitutions  are  founded.  In  this  convention  there 
are  two  houses,  the  Bishops  composing  one,  and  the  clerical 


220  hobart's  apology 

and  lay  deputies  the  other ;  answering  to  the  two  houses  in 

the  civil  legislatures.  And  the  Bishops,  and  the  clerical  and 
lay  deputies  have  a  reciprocal  check  upon  each  other  in  the 
enacting  of  laws.  Thus,  the  power  of  making  laws  in  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  America,  is  regulated  by  that  sound 
principle  of  ecclesiastical  polity  laid  down  by  the  judicious 
Hooker — "  In  matters  of  God — it  were  unnatural  not  to 
think  the  Pastors  and  Bishops  of  our  souls  a  great  deal  more 
fit  than  men  of  secular  trades  and  callings  :  howbeit,  when 
all  which  the  wisdom  of  all  sorts  can  do,  is  done  for  the  de- 
vising laws  in  the  «hurch,  it  is  the  general  consent  of  all  that 
giveth  them  iheform  and  vigour  of  laws."* 

*  This  passage  of  Hooker  is  quoted  at  p.  12S  of  these  letters.  The 
same  principle  is  thus  stated  by  a  Bishop  who  has  always  taken  a  leading 
part  in  the  concerns  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church.*  "  Reason  and 
propriety  require  that  those  persons  are  to  have  a  pre-eminence  in  the 
business "  of  regulating  ecclesiastical  affairs,  "  whose  stations  in  the 
church  invest  them  with  the  greatest  share  of  responsibility  " — for  to  the 
Bishops  and  clergy  "  the  oversight  of  the  flock"  is  committed  by  autho- 
rity transmitted  from  the  divine  Head  of  the  church,  and  to  him  they  are 
to  "  give  an  account  of  their  stewardship."  *'  But  yet  (as  the  Bishop 
goes  on  to  observe)  the  more  fully  the  things  determined  carry  with 
them  the  sanction  of  all  the  orders  to  be  governed  by  them,"  the  laity 
as  well  as  the  Bishops  and  clergy,  "the  nearer  they  conform  to  the  true 
principles  of  legislation,  whether  it  be  ecclesiastical  or  civil ;  and  the 
more  likely  they  are  to  be  wisely  done,  and  to  be  peaceably  and  profitably 
executed.  In  all  this,  however,  there  is  room  for  considerable  variety,  ac- 
cording as  human  prudence  shall  direct."  Obvious  and  indispensable  is 
the  principle  which  the  Bishop  further  states  :  "  Regulations  thus  made, 
are  binding  on  persons  of  all  orders  in  the  church  ;  and  on  the  contrary 
supposition,  there  can  be  no  order  or  social  government,  but  every  one  is 
left  to  his  own  humour  or  opinion." 

Order,  social  government.  Christian  unity  so  sacredly  enjoined  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  would  be  subverted,  if  any  individual  or  inferior 
judicatory  of  the  church  were  at  liberty  to  resist  the  acts  of  the  supreme 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Dissensions  and  schisms  without  number  would 
rend  and  subvert  the  church.  The  injunction  of  Christ  is  express,  that 
we  are  to  hear  the  church  in  all  things  not  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 

*  Bishop  White,  in  a  Consecration  Sermon  preached  before  the  Gene- 
ral Convention,  1804. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  221 

Mr.  M'Leod  is  pleased  to  observe,  that  the  general  con- 
vention of  the  Episcopal  Church  is  a  mere  "human  contri- 
vance."* What!  is  it  a  human  invention  that  the  Bishops 
and  clergy,  who  are  the  divinely  commissioned  governors  of 
the  church,  should  meet  to  legislate  for  it  ?  But  it  seems 
"they  share  theiv  power  with,  unauthorized  laymen V '\  And 
vi'hat  power  do  they  thus  share  }  Not  the  ministry  of  the 
word  and  sacraments ;  for  these  none  can  exercise  but  they 

*'  If  any  man  refuse  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  you  as  a  heathen- 
man  and  a  publican."  The  command  too  is  explicit,  "  obey  them  that 
have  the  ride  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves  :  for  they  watch  for  your 
souls,  as  they  that  must  give  account :"  *  and  the  sentence  of  the  council 
at  Jerusalem  t  was  definitive  and  binding  on  all  the  churches.  The  ex- 
ercise of  the  supreme  authority  in  the  Episcopal  Church  is  carefully 
guarded  from  abuse.  The  concurrence  of  the  three  orders  being  neces- 
sary to  any  act  of  the  general  convention,  no  one  order  can  encroach  upon 
the  other.  The  clergy  and  laity  are  represented  by  their  delegates :  and 
the  Bishops  are  not  only  liable  to  impeachment,  but  hold  stations  of  such 
great  responsibility,  and  so  conspicuous  in  the  church,  that  thei-e  is  no 
danger  of  their  erring  through  excess  of  authority.  Abuses  of  Episcopal 
prerogative  took  place  either  in  the  ages  of  darkness  or  superstition,  or 
when  the  Bishops  were  independent,  and  armed  with  secular  authority 
"  Power  becomes  dangerous,  not  from  the  precedency  of  one  man,  but 
from  his  being  independent.  Had  Rome  been  governed  by  a  Presbytery 
instead  of  a  Bishop ;  and  had  that  Presbytery  been  invested  with  the 
independent  riches  of  the  Papal  See ;  it  is  easy  to  conceive  of  their  ac- 
quiring as  much  power  over  the  Christian  world  as  was  ever  known  in  a 
Gregory  or  a  Paul." 

The  only  case  "  in  which  private  conscience  and  not  public  law  be- 
comes the  rule  of  conduct,"  is  when  the  ecclesiastical  authority  attempts 
to  "  change  the  revealed  will  of  God."  When  any  ecclesiastical  acts 
are  deemed  unjust  or  impolitic,  common  sense  and  propriety  obviously 
suggest  the  obtaining,  by  remonstrance  or  by  the  exercise  of  those  nume- 
rous checks  possessed  by  the  church  at  large,  of  a  change  in  those  obnox- 
ious measures,  rather  than  by  resistance  to  violate  the  first  principles  of 
order  and  government,  and  church  unity,  and  thus  throw  the  church  into 
disorder  and  endanger  her  existence. 

The  above  principles  are  essential  to  the  preservation  of  all  govern- 
ment; of  Presbyterian  as  well  as  Episcopal. 

*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  129.  f  Ibid. 

*  Heb.  xiii.  17.  f  Acts  xv. 

19* 


222  hobart's  apology 

who  are  "  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron."  Not  the  power 
of  ordination  ;  for  this  is  necessarily  exclusive^  and  must  flow 
"  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  in  the  channel  in  which  it  was 
at  first  placed.  While  this  power  and  the  ministry  of  the 
word  and  sacraments  are  preserved  inviolate^  every  thing  else 
in  the  constitution  of  the  church  is  a  matter  of  human  regula- 
tion and  expedie7icy.  There  is  nothing  in  scripture  forbid- 
ding the  associating  of  the  laity  with  the  clergy  in  making 
ecclesiastical  laws.  It  is  a  principle  of  sound  legislation, 
sanctioned  by  reason  and  good  policy,  to  obtain,  as  far  as 
may  be  practicable  and  consistent  with  the  order  and  strength 
of  government,  the  consent  of  all  those  to  the  laws  who  are 
to  be  governed  by  them.  The  requiring  of  every  thing  in  the 
church's  government  to  be  oi  divine  institution ,  is  an  error  of 
puiitanism.  It  never  has  been,  and  it  never  can  be  carried 
completely  into  effect.  In  the  church  many  things  must  be 
regulated  by  the  dictates  of  reason  and  common  sense,  and 
by  the  principles  of  sound  policy.  This  error  of  puritanism 
is  admirably  exposed  by  Hooker,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity. 
Let  Mr.  M'Leod  take  up  Hooker  and  answer  him.  He 
will  do  what  has  never  yet  been  done,  and  will  gain  infinite- 
ly more  honour  than  by  torturing  texts  of  scripture  to  sup- 
port principles  most  remote  from  their  obvious  meaning. 

The  superintending  influence  and  authority  of  the  Bishop, 
increased  as  it  generally  is  by  age  and  experience,  will  tend 
to  give  unity  of  design  and  promptness  of  execution  to  eccle- 
siastical measures.  By  his  charges  and  admonitions  to  his 
clergy,  he  may  successfully  excite  them  to  prudent  anima- 
tion and  firmness  in  defending  the  holy  faith  and  authority 
of  the  church ;  to  tender  faithfulness  and  zeal  in  proclaiming 
the  truths  of  salvation  ;  and  to  diligence  and  perseverance  in 
the  discharge  of  all  their  sacred  functions.  By  his  instruc- 
tions, his  counsels,  his  affectionate  sympathy,  he  ma}^  direct, 
inspirit  and  console  them  under  the  pressure  of  the  difficul- 
ties and  trials  to  which  they  are  exposed.  By  his  frequent 
and  faithful  administration  of  the  rite  of  confirmation^  he  may 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  223 

impress  on  the  young  the  awful  importance  of  their  spiritual 
interests,  place  them  under  the  guidance  of  divine  grace, 
and  lead  them  in  that  knowledge  which  will  make  them  wise 
unto  salvation.  By  his  visitations  to  his  churches,  by  his 
pastoral  letters  and  admonitions,  he  may  contribute  to  arrest 
the  baneful  spirit  of  intidelity,  and  the  insidious  advances 
of  heretical  opinions,  to  prevent  and  heal  divisions  and 
schisms,  to  strengthen  the  ties  of  harmony,  to  excite  and  pro- 
mote primitive  pietj^,  lively  and  sober  zeal  for  the  interests 
of  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer. 

But,  Sir,  you  have  found  out  a  compendious  way  of  de- 
molishing all  the  arguments  in  favour  of  Episcopacy  and 
the  Episcopal  Church.  Her  members  are  corrupt — her 
clergy  are  unfaithful — in  regard  to  practical  religion^  and 
what  you  deem  the  essentials  of  a  church  of  Christ,  she  is 
not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  non-Episcopal  churches. 
The  following  very  modest  challenge  decorates  the  pages  of 
the  Christian's  Magazine. 

"  For  assuredly,  if  there  is  not  within  this  church  much 
more  of  '-  power  and  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind  ;'  much  more 
of  the  fear  of  God  ;  of  '  receiving  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord'  and 
*  walking  in  him  ;'  of  reverential  attendance  upon  his  worship ; 
of  domestic  and  personal  godliness ;  in  one  word,  much  more 
of  the  spiritual  life,  and  of  that  holiness  without  which  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord ;  if  much  more  of  these  things  be  not 
found  within  his  church  than  without  it,  '  what  doth  it  profit.?' 
Will  Mr.  H.  meet  the  ordeal }  Will  he  accompany  us  from 
temple  to  temple,  from  pulpit  to  pulpit,  from  house  to  house, 
from  closet  to  closet,  and  agree,  that  in  proportion  as  there 
is  little  or  much  of  '•  pure  and  undefiled  religion'  in  them, 
their  grade  in  the  Christian  churches  shall  be  low  or  high } 
Is  it,  then,  a  fact,  that  in  the  church  which  boasts  of  the  only 
valid  ministrations,  and  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  being  in 
covenant  with  God,  there  is  more  evangelical  preaching ; 
more  of  Christ  crucified  ;  more  plain,  close,  decisive  dealing 
with  the  consciences  of  men,  upon  the  things  which  belong 


224  hobart's  apology 

to  their  peace,  than  in  .many  of  the  churches  which  she 

affects  to  despise  ?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  her  '  authorized  priest- 
hood' are  more  scrupulous  about  the  preservation  of  pure 
communion  ;  that  they  object  more  strongly  to  the  admission 
of  mere  men  of  the  world  ;  and  are  more  active  in  excluding 
from  their  fellowship  the  openly  irreligious,  than  are  others  ? 
Is  it  a  fact,  that  they  adopt  more  prompt  and  vigorous  mea- 
sures to  expel  from  their  pulpits  doctrine  which  flies  in  the 
face  of  their  avowed  principles,  and  is  acknowledged  by 
themselves  to  be  subversive  of  the  Christian  system  ?  Is  it 
a  fact,  that  in  this  '  primitive  apostolic'  church,  the  sheep  of 
Christ  and  his  lambs  are  more  plentifull}^  fed  with  *  the  bread  of 
God  which  came  down  from  heaven  ? '  Or  that  she  has  less  to 
attract  the  thoughtless  gay,  and  more  to  allure  those  who  be- 
come seriously  concerned  about  their  eternal  salvation,  than 
is  to  be  found  in  hundreds  of  churches  which  she  virtually 
delivers  unto  Satan  ?  Are  these  facts  ?  We  appeal  to  them 
who  have  eyes  to  see  and  ears  to  hear ;  especially  to  them 
who  '  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious." 

Now,  sir,  had  1  taken  up  one  of  the  musty  chronicles  of 
the  "  true  church  mihtant "  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when 
"  godly  zeal  for  reformation" 

**  — Made  all  cries  about  the  town 
Join  throats  to  cry  the  Bishops  down" — 

and  found  in  it  this  violent  declamation  against  the  Episcopal 
Church,  this  display  of  superior  holiness  and  zeal,  it  would 
have  occasioned  me  no  surprise.  I  should  instantly  have 
ascribed  it  to  some  fiery  religious  zealot,  some 

"  — Fierce  inquisitor  who  has  chief 

Dominion  over  men's  belief 

And  manners ;  can  pronounce  a  saint 

Idolatrous  or  ignorant. 

When  superciliously  he  sifts 

Through  coarsest  boulter  others'  gifts ; 

For  all  men  live  and  judge  amiss 

Whose  talents  jump  not  just  with  his." 

But  I   can  scarcely  believe   that   I   have   found  it   in  the 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER,  225 

Christianas  Magazine^  and  that  it  comes  from  the  pen  of  Dr. 

Mason. 

And  yet,  Sir,  I  might  have  expected  all  this,  and  more. 
Your  precursor,  Mr.  M'Leod,  had  spoken  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,"  in  a  style  and  spirit 
that  ought  to  have  prevented  my  being  surprised  at  any  thing 
that  came  from  the  same  quarter.  What  admirable  speci- 
mens of  humility  and  Christian  candour  are  the  following ! 
The  highest  commendation  I  can  pass  upon  them  is,  that  they 
will  not  yield  the  palm  to  the  foregoing  extract  from  the 
Christian's  Magazine. 

"  Those  who  do  not  '  like  to  retain  God  in  their  know- 
ledge,' are  given  over  to  '  strong  delusions.'  Such  also  as 
invent  forms  of  worship,  not  satisfied  with  the  simplicity  of 
the  scripture  modes,  are  often,  by  the  judgment  of  a  just  God, 
given  over  to  their  own  idols."*  Mark  this  Episcopalians. 
You  have  invented  a  form  of  worship,  and  the  judgment  of  a 
just  God  has  given  you  over  to  your  own  idols ;  that  is,  you 
know  "  little  of"  the  true  God  or  his  worship  !  Is  there  any 
doubt  that  this  is  Mr.  M'Leod's  meaning  }  Read  what  he 
immediately  subjoins  to  the  foregoing :  "  Let  any  man  of 
piety  consider  the  state  of  religion  in  the  Popish  and  Episco- 
pal Churches — Let  a  man  of  spiritual  discernment  inquire 
into  the  state  of  vital  godliness  in  them,  and  he  will  find  that 
little  of  it  is  left.  They  groan  under  a  load  of  superstition 
which  has  been  accumulating  for  ages.  Let  their  experience 
warn  others  to  abstain  from  every  act  of  will  worship,  "f 

Again :  "  As  the  spirit  of  prayer  departs  from  men  the 
practice  of  prayer  will  be  relinquished,  or  mere  forms  adopt- 
ed. "J  So  then,  we  cannot  have  the  spirit  of  prayer  when  we 
use  the  prayer  indited  by  our  blessed  Lord  himself,  and 
which  to  us  is  a  mere  form.  "  The  superstition  of  Rome,  and 
the  tyranny  of  Henry  the  Eighth  is  the  true  foundation  of 
the  Episcopal  Liturgy.''''^    What!  is  Mr.  M'L.  ignorant  that 

*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism  by  Mr.  M'Leod,  p.  125.      f  p.  125.      %  p.  126. 
§  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  by  Mr.  M'Leod,  p.  125. 


226  hobart's  apology 

many  parts  of  the  Liturgy  are  taken  from  the  liturgies  of  the 
primitive  church  ;  that  the  whole  of  it  was  compiled  by  vene- 
rable Reformers,  who  consecrated  it  with  their  blood ;  and 
that  it  has  since  been  improved  by  men  whose  fame  for  piety 
will  ever  be  in  the  churches  ? — "  Obliged  to  conform  to  this 
measure,  attempts  have  been  made  to  justify  it.  Arguments 
which  at  first  tended  to  palliate  an  evil  which  the  Bishops 
had  not  power  to  remedy,  are  at  last  thought  sufficient  to 
establish  a  divine  right.  Such  are  the  gradations  of  human 
FOLLY."*  Thank  you,  Mr.  M'Leod.  Long  may  Episcopa- 
lians glory  in  that  folly  which  prizes  the  Liturgy  as  the 
finest,  purest,  and  most  elevated  strain  of  devotion  that  ever 
fell  from  uninspired  lips.  Recollect,  the  gospel  itself  was 
*^  foolishness "  to  the  self-righteous  Pharisee,  and  to  the 
"  vain  disputer,"  puffed  up  with  false  philosophy. 

Mark  again  :  "  Preaching  is  the  meanest  service  in  the  Po- 
pish and  Episcopal  Churches.  It  is  merely  subservient  to  the 
government  of  Bishops  and  Popes.  The  Bishops  exalt  the 
mean  above  the  end.  Government  is  with  them  the  principal 
part  of  religion.  To  be  in  power  is  more  dignified  than  to  edi- 
fy."! "  The  Evangelists  have  been  transformed  into  prelates 
by  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  England.  These  churches  can 
canonize  Saints  and  consecrate  Bishops  at  pleasure.  It  is  re- 
markable that  they  are  always  for  increasing  the  power,  but 
never  for  appreciating  the  labour  of  the  teacher.  "J  What !  does 
Mr.  M'L.  mean  to  advance  preaching  above  the  duties  of  pray- 
er and  praise }  Let  him  profit  by  the  very  just  admonition  of  the 
"  Presbyterian  Church."  She  declares,  "  As  one  primary  de- 
sign of  public  ordinances  is  to  pay  social  acts  of  homage  to 
the  Most  High  God,  ministers  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  make 
their  sermons  so  long  as  to  interfere  with,  or  exclude  the 
more  important  duties  of  prayer  and  praise.''''^  Would  to  God 
that  this  principle  of  regarding  "  prayer  and  praise  as  the 
more  important  duties^''''  was  impressed  on  the  heart  of  every 
*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism  by  Mr.  M'Leod,  p.  126.     f  p.  106.     %  p.  107. 

§  Directory  for  Worship,  chap.  vi.  sect.  4. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  227 

Christian.  The  prevailing  rage  to  make  religion  consist  in 
hearing  sermons^  and  in  running  "  from  Dan  to  Beersheba " 
after  popular  preacherSy  threatens  serious  injury  to  the  inte- 
rests of  enlightened  and  substantial  piety  and  devotion.  This 
is  the  more  inexcusable  in  Episcopalians,  because  ihey  pos- 
sess a  service  in  vi^hich  they  may  always  worship  God  in 
spirit  and  in  truth.  Whatever  may  be  the  defects  of  the 
preacher y  they  can  find  in  the  liturgy  the  "  bread  of  life  "  to 
nourish,  and  to  comfort  the  soul.*  Just  are  the  remarks, 
that  "  Christians  are  united  to  God  by  being  brought  into 
covenant  with  him  by  baptism  ;  and  are  united  to  one  another 
by  being  members  of  his  church.  This  union,  which  has 
been  cemented  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  to  be  preserved  by 
the  ordinances  of  the  church ;  and  consequently  joint  prayers, 
or  social  worship  and  communion  in  the  sacraments,  are  as  ne- 
cessary to  eternal  life  as  hearing  the  word  of  God  preached : 
and,  it  may  be  added,  much  more  so  than  hearing  the  word 
of  God  preached  without  them." 

But,  do  the  Episcopal  Churches  account  "  preaching  a 
mean  service,"  or  "  make  government  the  principal  part  of 
religion  .?"  Is  not  preaching  a  part  of  the  public  service  not 
merely  on  the  Lord's  day,  but  on  all  the  greater  festivals  and 
fasts  consecrated  to  the  commemoration  of  the  leading  events 
in  the  history  of  Christ,  and  of  the  great  truths  of  Redemp- 
tion }  Are  not  the  principal  churches  in  England  opened 
daily,  and  in  this  country  several  times  a  week,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  offering  prayer  and  praises  to  God,  and  hearing  his 
holy  word  }  Does  all  this  look  as  if  they  did  not  "  appre- 
ciate the  labour  of  the  teacher" — as  if  to  "  edify"  were  a 
subordinate  object  in  Episcopal  Churches  ;  unless  indeed  Mr. 
M'L.  supposes  that  "  prayer  and  praise,  and  hearing  the 

*  Thus  observes  the  celebrated  Calvinistic  divine,  Toplady,  "  Let  a 
parish  minister  be  ever  so  spiritually  blind  and  dead,  the  liturgy  remains 
the  same.  Blessed  be  God,  the  clergy  are  forced  to  read  it,  and  to  admi- 
nister the  Lord's  supper  and  other  offices  according  to  its  adinirable  and 
animating  form  of  sound  words."    Toplady's  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  295. 


228 

word  of  God,"  do  not  tend  to  "  edify"  when  not  connected 
with  preaching  ?  Does  not  Mr.  M'L.  know  that  the  sermons 
of  English  Bishops  that  have  been  publislied  compose  nume- 
rous volumes ;  and  that  the  sermons  of  Bishop  Andrews, 
Bishop  Sanderson,  Bishop  Taylor,  Bishop  Bull,  Bishop 
Beveridge,  and  in  later  times  of  the  Bishops  Secker,  Wil- 
son, HoRNE,  Hurd,  and  Porteus,  and  "  a  legion  more,"  will 
bear  a  comparison  with  any  sermons  extant,  for  depth  of 
erudition,  critical  research,  just  and  impressive  elucidation  of 
divine  truth,  apostolic  simplicity,  and  pious  fervour  ?  Ex- 
empted as  some  of  the  English  Bishops  are  from  the  duty  of 
constant  parochial  preaching,  the  sermons  that  they  have  pub- 
lished are  proofs  that,  though  on  them  lies  "  the  care  of  the 
churches,"  they  have  not  neglected  this  duty.  And  when 
we  also  consider  that  some  of  the  most  profound  and  able 
works  in  defence  of  Christianity  and  its  doctrines  have  come 
from  the  bench  of  English  Bishops,  we  shall  be  able  to  ap- 
preciate the  justice  of  the  charge,  that  with  Bishops,  "  to 
be  in  power  is  more  dignified  than  to  edify. ''^  When  Mr. 
M'L.  talks  of  the  power  oi  Bishops,  let  him  try  to  recollect 
whether  there  are  not  historical  facts  which  prove  that  "  the 
little  finger  of  Presbytery  can  be  thicker  than  the  loins  of 
Prelacy.''^ 

"  Bishops  and  Popes  " — "  Popish  and  Episcopal  Churches  " 
— These  are  the  ungenerous  arts  constantly  used  to  excite 
vulgar  prejudices  against  Episcopal  Churches,  that  have  been 
the  most  determined  opponents  of  the  corruptions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

Further  still :  "  The  convocations  and  conventions  of  the 
Episcopalians  are  no  more  than  very  disorderly  Presbyterian 
Synods.'''^*  Sorry,  very  sorry  that  Episcopalians  have  got 
into  bad  company,  and  have  had  their  good  manners  cor- 
rupted by  evil  examples.  Again  :  "  The  boast  of  Episco- 
pac}^ — the  number  of  her  sons — is  proof  of  her  own  con- 
nection with  Antichrist — all  the  world  wondered  after  the 
*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  129. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  229 

beast."*  So  then,  when  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  become 
the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ,  the  reign  of 
Antichrist  will  be  at  its  height !  Really,  sir,  you  ought  not 
to  thank  Mr.  M'L.  for  this  remark;  for,  according  to  it, 
Presbyterians  in  this  country,  as  they  are  the  most  numerous, 
are  connecting  themselves  with  Antichrist,  beginning  to  court 
the  "mystical  Babylon,"  and  to  "be  drunk  with  the  cup  of 
her  abominations."  But  here  comes  the  climax  of  this 
highly  wrought  description  of  Episcopal  corruption.  "  Some 
Episcopalians  consider  baptism  as  synonymous  with  regene- 
ration. This  is  more  absurd  than  the  Anabaptist  conceit. 
There  are,  however,  masters  in  Israel  who  know  as  little  about 
the  NEW  BIRTH  as  Nicodemus  did.^^'f 

Episcopalians  !  all  this  is  from  the  pen  of  persons  who 
apply  to  themselves  the  exclusive  title  of  evangelical,  and 
brand  you  and  your  ministers  with  having  "  little  of  vital 
godliness  !"  And  yet  we  are  to  be  silent,  hear  our  venera- 
ble church  and  her  apostolic  worship  abused,  our  title  even 
to  the  "  power  of  godliness  "  questioned,  without  defending 
ourselves — for  fear  of  giving  offence !  And  do  the  opponents 
of  the  church  act  on  this  principle  ?  No,  I  commend  them 
for  a  more  manly  policy,  for  a  determined  resistance  to  what 
they  deem  error  and  corruption,  unawed  by  any  "  human 
regards." 

"  Masters  in  Israel^''''  says  Mr.  M'Leod,  "  who  know  as 
little  about  the  new  birth  as  Nicodemus  did.''''  Here,  Episco- 
palians, allusion  is  particularly  made  to  one  of  your  Bishops, 
who  has  ably  vindicated  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion. "  Who  art  thou,  O  man,  that  thus  judgest  another  .^" 
Who  gave  thee  the  right  and  power  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
heart,  and  to  pronounce  a  venerable  Clergyman,  and  an  ex- 
emplary Christian,  a  stranger  to  that  "  new  birth,"  without 
which  no  man  can  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  } 

That  the  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  New- York 

was  here  particularly  aimed  at,  is  evident  from  the  circum- 

*  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  129.  f  p.  127. 

20 


230  hobart's  apology 

stance  that  he  published  a  defence  of  baptismal  regeneration : 
and  Mr.  M'L.  a  few  sentences  after  the  one  above  quoted, 
observes  concerning  this  doctrine,  "Miserable  Episcopalians! 
if  this  be  all  your  regeneration  !  But  I  reject  the  ungenerous, 
the  infamous  thought.  No,  I  Vi^ould  not  believe  it  on  the 
authority  of  one  of  your  own  Bishops.''^  Grant,  however, 
that  there  is  no  particular  allusion.  So  much  the  worse. 
For  then  all  the  Episcopal  clergy  who  believe  this  doctrine 
of  their  church  are  involved  in  this  charge.  "  There  are 
masters  in  Israel  who  know  as  little  about  the  new  birth  as 
Nicodemus  did  !" 

The  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
either  do  not,  or  will  not  know  that  there  is  a  distinction 
made  in  the  language  of  the  Episcopal  Church  as  well  as  of 
scripture,  between  regeneration  and  renovation.  "  He 
saved  us,"  saith  the  Apostle,*  "  by  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion^ and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ^^ — the  former  ex- 
pression evidently  denoting  baptism.  The  same  distinction 
is  observed  by  the  church  in  her  baptismal  service,  and  par- 
ticularly in  one  of  her  Collects. I  "  Grant  that  we,  being 
regenerate^  may  daily  be  renewed  by  thy  Holy  Spirit."  Epis- 
copalians maintain  baptismal  regeneration  in  this  sense,  that 
the  baptized  person  is  born  again,  not  in  the  affections  of  his 
soul,  but  into  a  new  state,  in  which  he  receives  conditionally 
a  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  covenant.  But  do  Epis- 
copalians, therefore,  deny  the  necessity  of  the  "  renewing 
of  the  mind  .?"  God  forbid  !  No  ;  they  maintain,  that  unless 
in  the  baptized  person,  by  the  power  of  that  Holy  Spirit  a 
title  to  which  is  conferred  in  baptism,  the  "  old  man  be  buried 
and  the  new  man  raised  up  ;"  unless  "  all  sinful  affections 
die  in  him,  and  all  things  belonging  to  the  Spirit  do  live  and 
grow  in  him ;"  unless  the  "  old  man  be  crucified,  and  the 
whole  body  of  sin  abolished  ;"  unless  he  "  die  from  sin,  and 
rise  again  unto  righteousness,"!  unless  he  thus  be  "  renewed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  his  baptismal  regeneration  will  only 

*  Titus  iii.  5.  f  For  Christmas  day.  t  Baptismal  Service. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  231 

aggravate  his  guilt  and  increase  his  condemnation.  The 
advocate  of  baptismal  regeneration  may,  therefore,  consist- 
ently maintain  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  in  its  strongest 
spiritual  sense. 

To  vindicate  the  institutions  of  the  Episcopal  Church  from 
all  these  charges,  I  might  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the 
divines  of  the  Reformed  churches,  some  of  whom  I  have 
already  adduced.  I  might  urge  a  long  list  of  Calvinistic 
divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  "  Herveys,  the  Ro- 
MAiNES,  the  Newtons,  the  Scotts,"  all  of  whom  gloried  in 
their  being  sons  of  that  church  which  Mr.  M'L.  says  is 
"connected  with  Antichrist,"  and  ''groans  under  a  load 
of  superstition ;"  all  of  whom  offered  up  the  devotions  of 
the  congregation  in  those  "  mere  forms "  which  Mr.  M'L. 
says  are  only  "  adopted "  "  as  the  spirit  of  prayer  departs 
from  men." 

The  celebrated  Toplady,  who  stands  high  in  the  estima- 
tion of  Calvinists,  forbids  any  person's  forsaking  the  Church 
of  England  (as  reasonably  he  might)  through  "  love  for  the 
gospel  of  grace."  "  It  should  rather  bind  him  more  closely 
and  firmly  to  a  church  whose  doctrines  and  sacraments  are 
holy,  harmless,  undefiled ;  and  alike  remote  from  error,  super- 
stition^ and  licentiousness."*  In  consistency  with  this  prin- 
ciple, Toplady  "  constantly  and  strictly  communicated  in  the 
church  onhjj^^  (and  he  enjoins  the  same  conduct  on  others) 
even  though  "  the  clergymen  from  whom  he  received  the 
memorials  of  Christ's  dying  love  knew  no  more  of  the  gos- 
pel "  (strange  assertion  for  a  humble  Christian)  "  than  so 
many  stocks  or  stones."! 

I  take  some  pride,  however,  in  a  testimony  in  favour  of 
the  Church  of  England  from  a  different  quarter,  from  one 
whose  panegyric  is  thus  drawn  by  a  periodical  writer,  who, 
I  am  told,  stands  high  in  your  esteem.  "  As  a  poet,  a  scho- 
lar, as  one  endowed  with  wit  and  genius,  a  philosopher,  and 
a  good  moral  man"  (and  the  public  voice  will  add  also, 

*  Toplady's  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  294.  f  Ibid.  vol.  vi.  p.  295. 


232  hobart's  apology 

as  a  good  Christian)  "  neither  Britain  nor  any  other  country 
can  boast  of  such  a  bright  example  as  Dr.  Beattie."  The 
following  is  from  the  pen  of  his  biographer  :  "  Although  Dr. 
Beattie  had  been  brought  up  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  regularly  attended  her  worship  and 
ordinances  when  at  Aberdeen,  he  yet  gave  the  most  decided 
preference  to  the  Church  of  England,  generally  attending  the 
service  of  that  church  when  any  where  from  home,  and  con- 
stantly when  at  Peterhead.  He  spoke  with  enthusiasm  of  the 
beauty ^  simplicity^  and  energy  of  the  English  Liturgy,  espe- 
cially of  the  litany^  which  he  declared  to  be  the  finest  piece 
of  uninspired  composition  in  any  language."*  This  cele- 
brated philosopher  and  amiable  man  entertained  the  same 
opinion  of  the  Church  of  England  with  a  distinguished  pre- 
late, (Dr.  Drummond,  Archbishop  of  York)  who  was  his 
friend  and  correspondent.  "  The  Church  of  England  is  the 
most  agreeable  to  Christian  discipline ;  equally  distant  from 
wild  conceit  and  impUcit  faith  ;  free,  manly,  and  benevolent; 
conducive  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  virtue,  to  the  happiness 
of  society,  and  of  every  individual  in  it.  And  it  is  the  estab- 
lishment that  seems  to  carry  the  fairest  aspect  with  it  towards 
promoting  pure  Christianity  and  civil  order,  without  overhear- 
ing^ or  artful^  or  abject  means." |  Great  as  may  be  my  re- 
spect for  the  talents  and  piety  of  Dr.  M.  and  Mr.  M'L.  I 
certainly  should  not  be  disposed,  as  far  as  opinion  goes,  to 
rely  more  on  theirs  than  on  that  of  Dr.  Drummond  and  Dr. 
Beattie. 

But,  sir,  it  seems  the  Episcopal  Church  is  deficient  in 
"vital  godhness,"  and  in  "pure  and  undefiled  rehgion." 
You  will  not  find  me  the  apologist  of  the  lukewarmness  or 
defects  of  Christians  because  they  are  of  my  "  own  house- 

*  Life  of  Beattie,  by  Sir  William  Forbes,  American  edition,  p.  4,  98. 
There  are  some  reviewers  and  writers  who  affect  to  depreciate  Dr.  Beattie 
and  his  biographer.  The  cause  of  this  is  apparent :  Dr.  Beattie  gave  "  a 
decided  preference  to  the  Church  of  England." 

t  Life  of  Beattie,  p.  165,  American  edition. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER,  233 

hold."  In  common  with  my  clerical  brethren,  it  is  a  source 
of  bitter  regret  to  me,  and  the  painful  subject  on  which  I 
trust  we  often  pour  out  our  hearts  before  the  Father  of  mer- 
cies, that  an  inordinate  attachment  to  the  world  and  its  plea 
sures  seems  to  have  eaten  up  the  piety  and  zeal  of  too  many 
who  call  themselves  Churchmen.  And  perhaps,  sir,  we  are 
not  disposed  to  boast  that  we  are  entirely  ^'  guiltless  in  this 
matter  ;"  or  that  our  zeal,  faithfulness  and  diligence  in  incul 
eating  those  doctrines  of  the  cross  which  have  ever  proved 
the  ^'  power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  could  not  have  been 
greater.  "  Our  trust,  O  Lord,  is  not  in  our  own  merits,  but 
in  thy  manifold  and  great  mercies." 

But  you  surely  are  sensible  that  spiritual  pride^  arrogance^ 
and  censorlousness,  are  vices  as  hateful  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and  as  inconsistent  with  the  "  power  of  godliness  "  and  the 
Christian  temper,  as  are  indifference,  lukewarmness  and 
attachment  to  worldly  pleasure.  You  surely  are  sufficiently 
acquainted  with  human  nature  to  know,  that  spiritual  pride, 
arrogance,  and  censoriousness  often  exist  in  those  who  are 
loudest  in  their  calls  for  evangelical  preaching ,  and  who  have 
"  the  Lord  Jesus "  most  frequently  on  their  lips.*  It  is 
much  more  easy  and  pleasant  with  bold  faith  to  call  the 
Redeemer  Lord,  Lord^  and  to  listen  to  glowing  descriptions 
of  his  GRACE  (and  if  they  be  sober,  I  am  far  from  insinuat- 
ing that  they  can  be  too  glowing)  than  it  is  faithfully  and 
constantly"  to  apply  this  grace  to  "crucif^'ing  the  flesh"  with 
its  evil  tempers,  to  bringing  dow^n  the  "  high  and  lofty  ima- 
ginations" of  the  heart.  The  Christian,  like  his  divine 
master,  is  meek  and  lowly,  not  merely  in  profession.  Alas ! 
professions  are  easily  supported  by  those  cant  phrases  that 
are   often  transmitted  from  one  religionist  to  another,  and 

*  The  perversity  of  human  nature,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  the  human 
heart,  are  in  nothing  more  apparent  than  in  the  disposition  of  men  to 
make  a  commutation  of  vices. 

"  Compound  for  sins  they  are  inclined  to, 
By  damning  those  they  have  no  mind  to." 
20* 


234 

repeated  by  rote,  as  the  school-boy  would  con  over  his  les- 
son. But  the  Christian  is  "  meek  and  lowly  in  heart  ;^^  in  a 
life  uniformly  gentle,  in  a  deportment  habitually  unassuming, 
kind,  humble  and  peaceable.  "  Meekness,  gentleness,  and 
humility"  are  among  the  principal  "fruits  of  the  spirit." 
And  perhaps  if  you  take  these  as  the  standard  of  the  "  power 
of  godliness,"  you  may  be  induced  to  abate  somewhat  of 
your  censures  of  Episcopalians,  and  somewhat  of  your  high 
commendations  of  those  whom  you  triumphantly  contrast 
with  them.  Far  be  it  from  me  proudly  to  seat  myself  in 
the  throne  of  judgment,  and  to  wield  the  bolts  of  censure. 
Many,  it  gratifies  me  to  say,  very  many  are  there  among 
non-Episcopal  Christians,  who,  by  their  meek,  their  humble, 
and  holy  virtues,  evidence  that  they  "  have  been  with  Jesus," 
and  are  "taught  by  his  spirit."  But  sure  I  am,  sir,  that  in 
the  "Right  Rev.  Prelates,"*  to  whom  I  am  sorry  to  say 
you  allude  in  your  wonted  contemptuous  manner,  there 
appear  the  graces  of  humility,  meekness,  and  unaffected 
piety,  shining  with  a  lustre  that  would  not  have  disgraced 
the  apostolic  age,  and  which,  really  sir,  it  will  be  happy  for 
us  both  if  we  can  display.  But  I  dismiss  an  odious  compa- 
rison, on  which  I  deeply  regret  you  have  thought  it  necessa- 
ry to  enlarge. 

But  in  your  triumphant  enumeration  of  the  Christian 
graces  of  non-Episcopalians,  3'ou  have  forgotten  to  inquire 
whether  they  possess  that  most  important  one — Christian 
unity  J  "  the  keeping  of  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace."  Whether  this  unity  be  compatible  with  those  divi- 
sions which,  since  their  departure  from  Episcopacy,  they  are 
multiplying  without  end,  is  surely  worthy  of  their  serious 
consideration.'!' 

In   my  judgment   the   comparison  was  unnecessary  and 

*  Bishop  Moore  of  New- York,  and  Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania. 

t  The  Roman  Catholics  reproach  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches 
with  a  breach  of  Christian  unity.  The  answer  is  at  hand — The  Church 
of  Rome  prescribes  sinful  terms  of  communioti.  This  plea  for  separation 
from  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches  cannot  be  urged. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  235 

irrelevant.  The  defects  and  corruptions  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  were  they  as  great  as  you  represent  them,  do  not 
arise  from  her  doctrines  or  institutions,  both  of  which  are 
pure  and  spiritual,  and  calculated  to  nurse  men  for  the 
church  triumphant  in  heaven.  By  what  rule  of  justice  are 
doctrines  or  institutions  to  be  made  accountable  for  the  mis- 
conduct of  those  who  neglect  or  pervert  them  }  Was  not  the 
Jewish  Church  of  divine  origin  .''  And  yet  there  was  a  time 
when  there  were  only  "  seven  thousand"  among  the  people 
of  God  "  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal."  Your  rea- 
soning would  justify  us  in  considering  the  idolatry  and  cor- 
ruptions of  the  Jews  as  proofs  that  the  Church  of  God  was 
not  among  them,  that  "  the  statutes  and  ordinances  of  the 
Most  High"  were  unnecessary,  because  they  were  ineffectual. 
Causes,  for  which  neither  her  doctrines  nor  institutions  are  ac- 
countable, there  have  been,  in  abundance,  to  produce  what- 
ever laxity  or  faults  may  be  discoverable  in  the  American 
Episcopal  Church.  For  a  long,  long  period  she  was  a  de- 
pressed church.  Destitute  of  Bishops,  which  those  in  power, 
listening  to  the  representations  of  her  opponents,  refused  to 
allow  her  to  enjoy,  the  orders  of  her  ministry  were  incom- 
plete, and  her  "  candidates  were  forced  to  seek  for  ordina- 
tion in  another  hemisphere,  at  a  great  expense  ;  which  many 
of  them  were  but  ill  able  to  bear.  From  the  same  defect  she 
was  without  union,  without  government.  But  her  unhappy 
situation  in  this  respect  was,  by  the  late  revolutionary  war, 
much  aggravated.  Many  of  her  clergy  were  attached  on 
principle  to  the  church  and  monarchy  of  Britain ;  and  not 
caring  to  concur  in  the  measures  which  were  taking  to  effect 
a  separation  from  her,  abandoned  their  cures,  and  returned 
for  refuge  to  what  had  till  then  been  termed  the  mother 
country.  Death  removed  others.  Great  numbers  of  parishes 
became  vacant ;  and  the  service  of  the  church  therein  utterly 
suspended."  Even  the  smiles  of  the  civil  power  in  the 
Southern  States  proved  the  bane  of  the  church.  The  civil 
authority  "  secured  to  the  clergy  their  salaries  during  life, 


236  hobart's  apology 

independently  of  good  behaviour.'^''  There  were  no  Bishops 
to  advise,  to  admonish  the  clergy,  or  to  exercise  discipline 
over  them.  The  dangers  and  difficulties  attending  the  ob- 
taining of  a  foreign  ordination  discouraged  natives  from 
entering  into  the  ministr5^  And  thus  the  independent  sala- 
ries of  the  clergy  were  only  a  lure  to  foreign  clergymen,  who, 
with  some  honourable  exceptions^  were  generally  adventurers 
destitute  of  talents,  of  piety,  or  of  zeal.* 

Flourishing  as  other  denominations  were  under  discipline 
completely  organized,  the  Episcopal  Church,  at  the  close  of 
the  American  war,  stripped  of  some  of  her  best  clergy,  of 
numbers  of  her  laity,  of  the  accustomed  means  of  support, 
without  government,  without  discipline,  was  left  a  depressed, 
and,  alas  !  from  various  causes,  a  divided  church.  It  is  a 
matter  of  astonishment  and  gratitude  that  she  did  not  sink 
under  the  difficulties,  the  distractions  and  divisions  which 
assailed  her.  But  she  was  that  "  vine  which  the  right  hand 
of  the  Lord  had  planted,"  which  he  beheld  with  compassion, 
and  resolved  to  "visit."  Adversity  had  not  extinguished 
that  evangelical  liturgy  which,  like  a  sacred  fire,  kindled  at 
the  altar  of  heaven,  shed  the  light  of  truth  amidst  the  dark 
night  of  error,  und  diffused  warmth  amidst  the  chilling  damps 
of  lukewarmness.  Yes  !  to  this  liturgy,  under  the  blessing 
of  God  upon  the  exertions  of  those  who  in  her  adversity  did 
not  forsake  her,  she  in  a  great  measure  owes  her  preserva- 
tion. Ma}^  the  daughter  of  Zion  shake  herself  from  the  dust, 
and  shine  forth  in  the  garments  of  "glory  and  beauty !" 

Your  arguments  against  the  Episcopal  Church  from  the 
supposed  defects  of  her  ministers  and  members,  are  founded 
on  a  principle  contrar}"  to  daily,  universal,  and  uniform  ex- 
perience, that  the  profession  of  truth  is  always  connected  with 
corresponding /rwi/5  of  holiness  and  virtue.  This  principle  fur- 
nishes the  infidel  with  a  weapon  with  which,  at  one  blow,  he 

*  The  above  statement  is  taken  in  substance  from  an  ordination  ser- 
mon preached  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews,  of  Philadelphia,  whom  I  re- 
vere as  one  of  my  earliest  and  most  affectionate  guides  and  preceptors. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  237 

may  demolish  the  Christian  system.  He  has  only  to  prove 
that  the  lives  of  many  Christian  professors  are  disgraced  by 
numerous  follies  and  vices  ;  and,  according  to  your  reason- 
ing, it  follows,  that  the  system  of  Christianity  cannot  be  true. 
A  system  of  divine  origin  and  power  would  produce  in  its 
professors  more  holy  fruits  !  This  reasoning  overlooks  the 
obvious  and  universally  admitted  distinction  between  a  cause 
and  its  advocates^  between  principles  and  the  conduct  of  those 
who  profess  them,  between  the  theory  and  institutions  of  a 
church  and  the  practice  of  its  members.  To  contend  from 
the  defects  and  vices  of  the  latter^  that  the  pretensions  of  the 
former  are  unfounded,  outrages  common  sense  and  justice  ; 
and  is  a  mode  of  reasoning  which,  w^hen  wielded  by  the  infi- 
del, proves  that  Christianity  itself  is  founded  in  error. 

Consider  the  tendency  of  your  reasoning  in  the  mouth  of 
one  of  the  society  of  Friends  or  Quakers.  Whatever  may  be 
the  failings  of  individuals  of  this  sect,  yet  as  a  society  they 
certainly  exhibit,  in  no  ordinarj"  degree,  the  fruits  of  love  to 
God  and  benevolence  to  man.  And  what !  may  the  Qua- 
kers exclaim,  are  all  these  in  the  estimation  of  an  arrogant 
Priest  to  pass  for  nothing,  and  are  w^e  to  be  accused  of  "  lay- 
ing the  axe  at  the  root  of  entire  Christianity,"  because  we 
"set  aside  the  distinctive  character  and  authentic  call  of  the 
gospel  ministry  ?  "*  Can  this  ministry  and  the  sacraments 
administered  by  them  be  so  essential  in  the  Christian  church, 
that  the  rejection  of  them  "  lays  the  axe  at  the  root  of  en- 
tire Christianity,"  when  we  who  discard  them,  evidence 
among  us  as  much  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion^  as  they  do 
who  connect  the  ministry  and  sacraments  with  the  system 
of  "  entire  Christianity  .'"  Can  these  sacraments  and  minis- 
tiy  be  indeed  of  God  }  Would  then  he  who  is  the  "  Author 
of  every  good  and  perfect  gift,"  and  "•  without  whom  we 
can  do  nothing,"  enable  us  who  reject  his  institutions,  to  ex- 
hibit any  of  "the  fruits  of  the  spirit."  No,  says  the  Quaker, 
we  put  these  "  champions"  of  a  hireling  piesthood  "  upon 
*  Christian's  Magazine,  Introduction,  p.  5. 


238  hobart's  apology 

their  trial  before  the  bar  of  scripture,  of  conscience,  and  of 
public  criticism.  We  demand  the  evidence  of  the  superiority 
of  their  practical  religion,  both  in  quantity  and  quality.  If 
they  cannot  nor  will  not  answer,  no  rational  man  will  be  at 
a  loss  for  the  reason."*  Truly,  Sir,  I  must  insist  on  your 
settling  this  important  point  with  the  Quaker,  before  I  can 
allow  you  to  assail  Episcopalians  with  the  weapons  which 
he  successfully  wields  against  yourself. 

Again,  Sir  :  Place  your  reasoning  against  Episcopalians  in 
the  mouth  of  the  Methodist,  or  lay  preacher.  Them  you 
denounce,!  not  only  for  "  endeavouring  to  set  aside  the  dis- 
tinctive character,  and  the  authentic  call  of  the  gospel  minis- 
try," but  for  "  proscribing  from  the  ministry  all  talents" — 
and  "  for  drawing  many  after  their  pernicious  ways,"  by  ad- 
dressing themselves  to  the  avarice  of  one  class,  to  the  conceit 
of  another,  to  the  credulity  of  a  third,  and  to  the  ignorance 
of  all."  What!  may  the  Methodist  and  Imj  preacher  ex- 
claim, does  this  arrogant  "  lettered  gownsman  "  pretend  that 
"  learning  "  or  an  external  commission  is  necessary  to  "  di- 
vine teaching  .^"  We  put  him  on  "  his  trial  before  the  bar 
of  scripture,  of  conscience,  and  of  public  criticism."  Let  him 
produce  the  "  seals  of  his  ministry ;"  and  let  us  see  whether 
his  learned  labours  have  been  more  blessed  to  the  conversion 
of  souls  than  have  been  the  labours  of  hundreds  who,  desti- 
titute  of  what  he  considers  an  "  authentic  call,"  destitute  of 
"  human  learning,"  have  relied  only  on  the  call  of  the  spirit^ 
on  divine  teaching. 

Alas,  sir  !  alas,  sir  !  Your  reasoning  against  the  principles 
of  Episcopalians  from  the  deficiency  of  vital  godliness  among 
them,  is  a  two-edged  sword  as  destructive  to  jo\xr  own  cause 
as  to  theirs  !  In  the  hands  of  the  infidel,  the  Quaker,  and 
the  Methodist,  or  lay  preacher,  it  may  be  wielded  to  pros- 
trate Christianity,  to  subvert  all  positive  institutions,  and  to 

*  This  is  the  language  of  your  boastful  challenge  to  Episcopalians. 
Christian's  Magazine,  p.  103. 
t  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  4. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  239 

cut  up  by  the  roots  the  Christian  ministry  and  the  visible 
church. 

Every  thing  good  in  man  proceeds  from  the  efficacious  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  shall,  therefore,  be  com- 
pelled to  acknowledge,  that  this  Holy  Spirit,  evidenced  by 
some  of  its  fruits,  dwells  with  many  who  maintain  great  and 
fundamental  errors  ;  nay,  with  many  who  by  "  endeavouring 
to  set  aside  the  distinctive  character  and  the  authentic  call  of 
the  gospel  ministry,"  "  lay  their  axe  at  the  root  of  entire 
Christianity."*  Do  we,  therefore,  make  void  the  positive 
institutions  of  the  Almighty  ?  God  forbid  !  He  who  "  work- 
eth  all  things  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,"  may 
dispense  with  his  own  institutions,  and  depart  from  the  settled 
order  of  the  economy  of  grace.  It  may  please  him  to  bless 
the  sincere  and  even  the  hypocritical  exertions  and  labours  of 
those  who  reject  the  positive  institutions  and  laws  of  his  house. 
"  He  giveth  not  to  man  an  account  of  his  doings."  The  in- 
efficacy  of  these  institutions  on  the  lives  of  many,  and  the 
piety  and  holiness  which  others  exhibit  who  reject  them,  may 
be  trials  of  our  humility  and  submission  ;  tests  whether  under 
these  inauspicious  appearances  we  may  not  arrogantly  ex- 
claim, "  To  what  purpose  are  these  positive  ordinances .'' 
We  may  be  pious  and  virtuous  without  them  !"  Ah !  let 
not  the  humble  believer  be  seduced  by  this  specious  but 
arrogant  reasoning  from  the  "  ways  of  God's  appointment." 
It  was  this  proud  spirit  which  urged  our  first  parents  to  vio- 
late a  positive  institution  of  the  Almighty ;  which  lost  them 
paradise,  and  the  fallen  angels  the  glory  of  their  ^'  first  estate." 

*  Introduction,  p,  5. 


S40  hobart's  apology 


LETTER    XV. 
Sir, 

The  second  number  of  the  Christian's  Msgazine  dis- 
plays the  same  arrogant  ostentation  of  superior  learning,  the 
same  contempt  of  the  talents  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy, 
the  same  confident  assertion  on  which  the  first  number  relied 
for  success.  It  seems  it  was  unpardonable  arrogance  for  Mr. 
H,  to  assert  that  the  "  Author  of  Miscellanies  has  with  great 
industry  collected  together  all  the  arguments  against  Episco- 
pacy." What !  to  pretend  to  be  acquainted  with  all  the 
arguments  "  on  either  side  of  a  question,"  without  having 
perused  the  profound  and  luminous  elucidations  of  the  Editor 
of  the  Christian's  Magazine  !  Verily — this  was  a  presump- 
tion which  merited  chastisement.  Now,  sir,  I  still  am  dis- 
posed to  suspect,  that  you  will  not  have  adduced  a  single 
argument  to  which  the  Author  of  Miscellanies  has  not 
directly  or  indirectly  alluded — so  that  I  shall  be  justified  in 
saying  in  a  loose  and  general  sense  (and  really  I  did  not  ex- 
pect the  Editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine  would  conde- 
scend to  quibbling  on  words)  that  he  had  "  collected  together 
all  the  arguments  against  Episcopacy."  That  he  has  traced 
them  in  all  their  bearings  on  the  subject,  and  placed  them 
in  their  most  formidable  array,  I  have  no  where  asserted. 
And  yet,  sir,  at  present  there  is  no  prospect  that  your  attack 
will  obtain  for  you  greater  honours  than  those  which  he  has 
merited. 

"  Mr.  H.  has  taken  some  pains  to  invite  an  examination 
►  of  his  scholarship"* — "We  entirely  acquit  Cyprian  of  the 
charge  of  sinning  against  knowledge."!  Mr.  H.  the  Lay- 
man, and  Cyprian  are  the  "  unlearned  advocates  of  the 
hierarchy. "J  Presumptuous  men!  luckless  was  the  hour 
when  ye  provoked  the  wrath  of  the  learned  Dr.  M.  that 
paragon  of  talents,  who,  glowing  with  intuitive  knowledge, 

*  Christian's  Maajazine.  No.  II.  p.  188.  f  P-  203.  X  p.  205. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  241 

can  exhaust  any  subject  without  reading  a  page  or  consulting 
an  author ! 

But,  sir,  (I  am  almost  afraid  to  expostulate  with  you  lest 
I  should  provoke  your  heavier  vengeance)  it  was  not  quite 
/air,  it  was  not  quite  generous  and  manly  (modesty  I  know  is 
an  unfashionable  virtue)  to  overwhelm  by  your  dazzling 
talents  three  humble  individuals  who  have  reached  only  the 
first  steps  of  the  temple  of  science,  whose  vestibule  you 
have  long  since  passed,  whose  sacred  recesses  you  have 
already  explored.  At  our  period  of  life,  eight  or  ten  years 
may  make  an  important  difference  in  the  sum  of  attainments. 
And,  through  the  good  providence  of  God,  we  can  look  for- 
ward to  at  least  as  many  years  before  we  shall  equal  the  pre- 
sent age  of  our  giant  censor.  When  as  many  suns  have 
rolled  over  our  heads  as  have  shed  their  collected  glories 
upon  him,  perhaps  (alas  !  is  not  the  hope  presumptuous  }) — 
perhaps  (despair  almost  arrests  my  pen) — perhaps  we  may 
equal  in  erudition  the  profoundly  learned  Dr.  M.  At  present 
we  lay  claim  to  sufficient  learning  and  talents  to  defend  the 
Episcopal  Church  against  any  adversary.  Even  the  sneers, 
and  frowns,  and  haughty  airs  of  the  Editor  of  the  Christian's 
Magazine,  we  can  ^mmon  resolution  to  smile  at,  and  to 
disregard. 

Is  it  then  come  to  this  .?  Is  the  cause  of  Presbytery  to 
rest  on  ''  mere  names  which  are  of  little  real  value  .^"* 
What  is  the  Episcopal  argument  from  scripture  }  Episcopa- 
lians contend  that  from  the  first  there  have  been  three  grades 
of  the  ministry.  Christ,  the  Apostles,  and  the  seventy  ;  then 
the  Apostles,  Bishops  Presbyters  or  Elders,  and  Deacons  ; 
then  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  others  who  succeeded  the 
Apostles  in  the  powers  of  ordination  and  government.  Pres- 
byters and  Elders  called  also  Bishops,  and  Deacons.  Your 
assertion  is  manifestly  incorrect,  that  there  are  in  scripture  only 
two  grades.  But  how  does  the  Episcopalian  prove  that  there 
was  a  grade  of  the  ministry  superior  to  those  called  in  scrip- 

*  Mr.  M'Leod's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  30. 
21 


242 

tnre  Presbyters  or  Bishops  ?  By  a  simple  and  unerring  rule. 
The  powers  vested  in  them  and  their  acts  of  jurisdiction. 
Timothy  and  Titus  had  the  powers  of  ordaining  and  govern- 
ing the  clergy  vested  in  them ;  they  had  jurisdiction  over 
Presbyters.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  Presbyters  possessed 
these  powers  or  exercised  this  jurisdiction.  To  a  man  who 
contends  "  for  the  thing  and  not  for  the  name,"*  "  who  has 
no  turn  to  serve, "f  one  would  think  that  when  we  prove 
that  certain  ministers,  by  apostolic  institution,  possessed  pow- 
ers and  exercised  a  jurisdiction  which  we  have  no  proof 
that  another  set  of  ministers  possessed  or  exercised,  there  is 
the  most  satisfactory  evidence  that  these  last  have  no  claim 
to  these  powers. 

To  this  first  grade  of  the  ministry,  ecclesiastical  usage  has 
applied  the  title  of  Bishops.  And  hence  it  is  contended  by 
the  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  that  the  grade  of  ministers  now 
called  Bishops,  cannot  be  superior  to  Presbyters,  because  in 
scripture  these  titles  are  applied  to  the  same  office !  Epis- 
copalians prove  that  there  is  a  grade  of  ministers  superior  to 
those  styled  Presbyters  or  Bishops  in  scripture  ;  and  because 
to  this  superior  grade  a  title  was  afterwards  applied  usually 
given  in  scripture  to  the  second  grade,  it  is  contended  by  the 
opponents  of  Episcopacj^,  that  these  two  grades  are  the  same ! 
Are  not  Episcopalians  justifiable  in  styling  this  "  miserable 
sophistry  V  Do  you  not  admit  the  justice  of  this  appella- 
tion, when,  after  a  laboured  argument  of  several  pages  to 
prove  the  identity  of  those  now  called  Bishops  and  Presbyters, 
from  the  indiscriminate  application  of  these  titles  in  scripture, 
you  acknowledge  that  "  if  the  Episcopalian  establish  his 
claim "  of  a  superior  grade  "  hy  scriptural  facfSj^^  "  the 
choice  between  victory  or  defeat "  ''  in  the  contest  about 
scriptural  titles,"  "  would  not  be  worth  a  straw  to  either 
party  ?"J  You  applied  your  ingenuity  and  j'our  learning 
thi;ough  several  pages,  to  prove  that  there  could  not  be  a 

*  Mr.  M'Leod's  Ecclesiastical  Catechism,  p.  18. 

t  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  191.  %  p.  106, 107. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  243 

superior  grade  to  Presbyters,  because  the  title  bestowed  by 
Episcopalians  on  this  grade  is  used  in  scripture  indiscrimi- 
nately with  Presbyter.  And  yet  you  concede,  ''  abstractly 
considered,  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  our  doctrine  of 
the  identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  the  Episcopal 
doctrine  of  a  superior  grade."*  What  is  this  then  but  ac- 
knowledging that  you  have  been  insulting  the  understandings 
of  your  readers,  by  endeavouring  to  blind  them  with  "  mise- 
rable sophistry .?"  You  demolish  by  the  above  concession 
your  own  superstructure.  You  give  up  as  untenable  an  argu- 
ment which  you  tell  us  "  men  of  singular  learning,  candour, 
penetration,  and  force  of  mind,  have  considered  as  altogether 
unanswerable."!  And  so  have  men  of  singular  learning, 
candour,  penetration  and  force  of  mind,  considered  as  alto- 
gether unanswerable  the  arguments  in  favour  of  transubstan- 
tiation  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 

I  might  scorn,  therefore,  to  notice  any  further  an  argument 
which  you  have  yourself  laid  in  the  dust.  But  "  some  amuse- 
ment may  be  derived  from  remarking"  how  just  and  lucid 
are  your  views  of  it. 

The  Layman  and  his  colleagues  never  contended  that  the 
titles  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  not  generally  applied  in 
scripture  to  denote  the  second  grade  of  the  ministry.  But 
they  contended,  what  is  plain  as  "  the  sun  shining  in  his 
strength,"  that  these  words,  whether  considered  as  terms 
denoting  authority,  or  titles  affixed  to  particular  officers,  were 
capable  of  general  application,  and  were  not  inseparably  and 
immutably  fixed  to  any  particular  officer ;  and  that  hence  we 
could  not  infer,  merely  from  their  application.,  that  the  per- 
sons to  whom  they  were  applied,  either  at  the  same  period 
or  at  different  periods,  were  the  same  officers.  For  example 
— The  title  Bishop.,  as  denoting  an  overseer.,  is  applied  both 
as  a  term  of  authority  and  a  title  of  office  to  "  Jesus  Christ 
the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  souls,"  denoting  his  autho- 
rity and  office  as  spiritual  overseer  of  the  souls  of  his  people. 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  No.  II.  p.  207.  f  p.  189. 


244  hobart's  apology 

But  it  would  surely  be  madness  to  conclude  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  on  a  level  with  overseers^  or  Bishops  of  churches.  In 
like  manner  the  term  Presbyter,  in  its  general  and  official 
signification  as  a  rw/er,  may  be  and  has  been  applied  to 
the  Apostles,  who  were  divinely  inspired  governors  of  the 
church,  as  well  as  to  inferior  officers.  The  term  Deacon,  in 
its  signification  as  a  minister^  may  be  and  has  been  applied  to 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles  as  well  as  to  inferior  ministers. 

"  But  when  have  these  terms  a  particular  and  when  a 
general  signification  .'*"  They  have  a  particular  signification 
when  they  are  applied  to  officers  vested  with  peculiar  and 
distinct  powers  and  jurisdiction.  The  distinction  of  officers 
is  to  be  known  with  certainty  not  from  their  names,  but 
from  their  powers  and  jurisdiction.  This  was  the  position 
of  the  Layman  and  his  associates  ;  a  position  which  all  your 
ingenuity  cannot  subvert.  It  is  not  true,  as  you  assert,  that 
objects  are  correctly  distinguished  from  one  another  by  their 
names.  The  titles  of  officers  alone  will  not  accurately  dis- 
tinguish them.  The  distinction  can  be  assertained  only  by 
determining  their  powers  and  jurisdiction.  For  example — 
A  man  may  hear  the  people  at  New-Haven  and  Princeton 
talk  of  the  President.  But  from  the  name,  from  the  official 
title  only,  he  would  be  at  a  loss  to  know  whether  they  meant 
a  civil  or  a  literary  officer.  Nor  would  his  doubt  be  wholly 
removed  (were  he  a  stranger  in  our  country)  if  they  should 
name  President  Jefferson,  President  Dwight,  or  President 
Smith  ;  for  the  official  titles  only  would  not  determine  the  pre- 
cise nature  of  their  offices.  He  must  be  informed  of  their  re- 
spective powers  and  jurisdiction  before  he  can  understand  pre- 
cisely the  difference  between  them. 

Let  us  take  one  of  your  own  words.  "  The  Assembly,^^ 
according  to  you,  is  an  official  title.  But  the  title  alone,  ap- 
plied to  any  body  of  people,  would  not  accurately  distinguish 
them.  The  Assembly  may  be  applied  to  a  collection  of  per- 
sons at  Albany,  from  the  different  counties ;  to  a  collection 
of  Presbyterian  ministers  at  Philadelphia,  from  the  different 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  245 

Presbyteries ;  or  to  a  collection  of  people  at  any  place  for 
the  purpose  of  enjoying  the  amusement  of  dancing.  Now, 
had  a  stranger  to  your  sacred  character  been  told  last  winter 
that  Dr.  Mason  had  gone  to  "  the  Assembly,"  he  might  as 
well  have  concluded,  from  the  name  alone,  that  you  had  gone 
to  ''  the  Assembly"  in  the  city  of  New- York,  to  partake  of 
the  amusement  of  dancing,  as  that  you  had  gone  to  "  the 
Assembly"  at  Albany,  to  obtain  an  act  of  incorporation  for 
the  Associate-Reformed  Church.  I  make  this  remark  on  one 
of  your  examples,  merely  for  the  sake  of  illustration.  The 
application  of  the  official  term,  "  the  Assembly,"  to  different 
collections  of  people,-  would  not  enable  a  stranger  to  form  an 
accurate  idea  of  their  nature.  This  he  cannot  know  until 
he  is  informed  of  their  respective  powers,  jurisdiction  and 
objects. 

In  like  manner  "  the  Bishop  "  is  an  official  title  ;  but  when 
applied  to  ministers  it  will  not  designate  them  accurately  and 
precisely.  For  example — We  have  Dr.  Moore,  the  Bishop^ 
and  Dr.  Mason,  the  Bishop.  Now,  a  stranger  would  con- 
clude you  were  both  the  same  officer.  But  I  presume  you 
would  be  soon  anxious  to  satisfy  him  that  your  powers  and 
jurisdiction  were  very  different ;  that  you  were  the  scriptural 
Bishop  of  a  single  congregation,  and  he  was  the  "  unscriptural 
and  anti-Christian"  Bishop  of  a  diocese.  In  like  manner,  the 
titles  Elders  and  Deacons,  applied  to  officers  in  the  Episcopal 
and  Presbyterian  Churches,  would  not  accurately  designate 
them.  For  in  the  Episcopal  Church  an  Elder  has  the  minis- 
try of  the  word  and  sacraments ;  but  in  the  Presbyterian  he 
is  only  a  help  to  the  minister  in  the  administration  of  disci- 
pline. A  Deacon  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  like  the  Deacons 
in  scripture,  both  preaches  and  baptizes  ;*  but  in  the  Presby- 
terian his  sole  business  is  to  look  after  the  poor.  "  The  sum 
of  the  whole  is,"  that  we  are  to  ascertain  the  distinction  and 

*  Philip  the  Deacon,  converted  and  baptized  the  Samaritans  (Acts 
viii.  6.)  And  the  Deacons  were  set  apart  to  this  office  by  a  solemn  ordi- 
nation. 

21* 


246  hobart's  apology 

precise  nature  of  officers  not  by  their  official  titles,  but  by 
their  powers  and  jurisdiction.  Applying  this  plain  proposi- 
tion to  the  officers  of  the  Christian  church,  we  find  that  there 
is  one  grade  of  officers,  in  which  were  Timothy  and  Titus ^ 
who  possessed  the  powers  of  ordination  ;  and  another  grade 
of  officers  who  did  not  possess  these  powers,  but  only  the 
ministry  of  the  word  and  sacraments.  We  concede  that  this 
second  grade  are  commonly  called  Elders,  Presbyters,  or 
Bishops  :*  yet  we  contend  that  from  comparing  their  powers 
and  jurisdiction  with  those  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  it  is  appa- 
rent that  they  were  of  an  inferior  grade,  and  did  not  possess 
the  powers  of  ordaining  and  governing  church  officers.  We 
contend  that  the  title  Bishop^  applied  to  them  as  overseers  of 
their  respective  flocks,  is  not  so  incommunicably  and  insepa- 
rably fixed  to  them,  as  that  it  cannot  be  applied,  as  it  has  been, 
by  ecclesiastical  usage,  to  the  superior  grade  who  succeeded 
Timothy  and  Titus  in  their  powers  of  ordination  and  govern- 
ment, and  who  are  overseers  over  the  clergy  and  congrega- 
tions. As  Mr.  M'Leod  very  justly  observes,  "-names  are 
of  little  real  value."  "  It  is  for  the  thing.,  not  the  name  we 
contend."  We  prove  from  their  respective  powers  and  juris- 
diction, that  there  is  a  grade  of  ministers  with  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  government  superior  to  ordinary  ministers  of 
the  word.  To  contend  that,  because  a  title  of  general  appli- 
cation is  transferred  from  the  second  grade,  to  whom  it  is 
usually  applied  in  scripture,  to  the  first,  they  must  originally 
have  been  the  same  office,  is  too  absurd,  one  would  think,  to 
be  advanced  by  any  man  of  common  sense.     Suppose  it 

*  On  this  point  you  avail  yourself  very  liberally  of  Dr.  Hammond's 
singular  opinions.  Dr.  H.  was  confessedly  a  very  learned  and  distin- 
guished divine.  But  great  learning  is  no  security  against  hypothetical 
systems.  Dr.  H.  it  is  well  known,  maintained  some  singular  opinions  on 
other  subjects  besides  that  of  F.piscopacy.  No  cause  or  system  is  respon- 
sible for  every  defence  which  its  advocates  may  choose  to  set  up.  Remem- 
ber, you  chide  (and  astonishing  too  that  you  should  gently  chide)  Mr. 
M'Leod  for  not  selecting  his  proofs  from  scrijtture  with  equal  care.* 
*  Christian's  Magazine,  No.  I.  p.  108,  109. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  247 

should  be  found  expedient,  without  altering  the  powers  of 
those  now  called  Bishops  in  Episcopal  Churches,  to  alter 
their  titles,  and  to  call  them  superintendents^  and  to  give  the 
term  Bishop  to  the  second  order  as  overseers  of  congregations ; 
would  any  man  in  his  senses  contend,  contrary  to  fact,  that 
because  Presbyters  are  called  Bishops,  they  originally  pos- 
sessed the  powers  which  those  formerly  called  Bishops  in 
Episcopal  Churches  possessed  ?  This  possible  case  proves 
the  fallacy  of  your  position,  that  "  change  of  names  presup- 
poses change  of  things.''''*  This  is  not  necessarily  true  in 
theory;  nor  is  it  so  in  fact.  Various  circumstances  may 
render  expedient  a  change  of  names  while  the  things  them- 
selves remain  the  same.  There  are  now  three  grades  of 
ministers  in  Episcopal  churches,  with  appropriate  powers, 
called  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons.  Might  not  the 
church  change  the  names  of  these  officers  without  in  any 
degree  changing  their  powers  } 

"  Change  of  names  presupposes  change  of  things  !"  This 
is  not  true  in  fact.  The  original  name  of  the  second  order 
of  the  ministry  was  Elder  or  Presbyter.  Yet  these  names 
in  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
America,  have  grown  into  disuse,  and  the  official  title  of 
those  orignally  called  Presbj^ter  is  now  Priests.  Here  is  a 
change  of  name  without  any  change  in  the  office. |  As  the 
names  of  things  are  often  changed  while  the  things  remain 
the  same,  so,  on  the  contrary,  things  are  often  changed  and 
not  their  names.  Of  this  one  single  familiar  instance  shall 
suffice.  The  supreme  legislative  assembly  of  the  United 
States  bears  now  the  same  name,  Congress^  which  it  did 
before  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitution.  And  yet 
under  the  old  confederation,  the   Congress  consisted  of  but 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  No.  II.  p.  211. 

f  A  familiar  instance  of  change  of  names  without  change  of  things 
may  be  given  which  will  strike  every  person.  The  names  of  certain 
streets  in  the  city  of  New- York  have  been  changed  since  the  Revolution, 
while  the  streets  have  remained  the  same. 


248  hobart's  apology 


V 


one  house  of  delegates  elected  by  the  legislatures  of  the 
States,  and  possessed  but  few  general  powers.  Under  the 
new  form  of  government,  the  Congress  consists  of  two 
houses,  one  of  them  chosen  by  the  legislatures  and  the  other 
by  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  their  powers  are 
much  enlarged.  Here  was  a  material  change  of  the  thing 
and  no  change  of  the  name.  Before  you  indulge  in  positive 
and  dogmatic  assertions,  it  will  be  well  for  you  to  reflect 
'  whether  they  are  supported  by  facts.  Your  laboured  rea- 
soning about  names  is  almost  entirely  fallacious. 

There  was  an  adequate  reason  for  the  change  of  the  titles 
of  the  first  grade  of  the  ministry.  They  succeeded  the 
Apostles  in  their  ordinary  apostolic  powers  of  ordination 
and  government ;  but  in  order  that  the  name  Apostles  might 
be  applied  by  way  of  pre-eminence  to  the  twelve,  it  was 
natural  and  proper  that  the  first  grade  of  the  ministry  should 
assume  some  other  title.  And  the  title  Bishop  is  applied 
with  as  much  propriety  to  them  who  are  overseers  of  the 
clergy  and  congregations,  as  to  Presbyters  who  were  over- 
seers of  a  smaller  portion  of  the  flock. 

Yes,  sir,  you  grant  all  that  Episcopalians  can  wish  when 
you  concede  that,  "  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the 
v.^  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  and  the 
Episcopal  doctrine  of  a  superior  grade."  And  how  are  we 
to  determine  whether  there  is  a  superior  grade  to  those  call- 
ed Bishops  and  Presbyters  in  scripture  .''  Surely,  by  ascer- 
taining that  there  is  a  distinct  grade  of  officers  with  superior 
powers  and  jurisdiction.  But  you  assert  that  there  could  be 
no  such  superior  grade,  because  there  is  no  official  title  de- 
terminately  applied  to  them  in  scripture.  Strange  indeed  ! 
We  prove  that  Timothy  and  Titus  and  others  possessed  the 
power  of  ordination,  which  we  do  not  find  the  other  minis- 
ters possessed,  and  the  power  of  jurisdiction  over  the  min- 
isters and  people  ;  and  yet  we  are  not  to  believe  these 
palpable  facts  because  we  do  not  find  any  names  determi- 
nately  applied   to   these    ofiicers.       What !    could   not  the 


> 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  249 

Apostles  institute  officers  and  leave  their  title  to  be  fixed  by 
ecclesiastical  usage  ?  It  is  not  improbable  (as  many  of  the 
Fathers  assert,  your  favourite  Jerome  among  the  number) 
that  this  first  grade  of  the  ministry  were  called  Apostles,  as 
succeeding  to  the  ordinary  powers  of  the  apostolic  office. 
As  the  chosen  companions  of  our  Lord,  and  witnesses  of  his 
resurrection,  the  Apostles  were  extraordinary  officers,  and 
could  have  no  successors.  But  in  their  ordinary  powers  of 
ordination  and  government  (powers  necessary  in  all  periods 
of  the  church,)  they  were  to  have  successors  even,  accord- 
ing to  the  promise  of  their  Lord,  "to  the  end  of  the  world." 
Your  sneers  at  Cyprian  for  considering  Epaphroditus  as  an 
Apostle,  might  have  been  spared,  had  you  considered  that 
your  favourite  and  learned  Jerome  considers  him  as  one  of 
the  superior  grade  of  ministers,  afterwards  called  Bishops, 
and  founds  his  assertion  on  the  text  to  the  Philippians,  in 
which  he  is  called  their  "  Apostle."* 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  for  the  advocates  of  Episco- 
pacy to  prove  that  the  title  Apostles  was  given  to  the  first 
grade  of  the  ministry.  For  your  argument  that  there  can  be 
no  grade  of  ministers  in  scripture  answering  to  those  now 
called  Bishops  in  Episcopal  Churches,  because  there  is  no 
title  annexed  to  them  in  scripture,  like  many  of  your  other 
arguments,  may  be  made  to  recoil  upon  yourself.  You 
assert  ''  that  Presbyterian  government  is  the  true  and  only 
one  which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  prescribed  in  his 
word." I  "Congregational  Assemblies  or  Sessions,"  and 
"  particular  and  general  Synods,"  are  constituent  parts  of 
Presbyterian  government,  and  of  course  prescribed  by  God 
in  his  word.  But  on  searching  the  scriptures  we  cannot 
find  in  them  any  such  titles  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  as  "  Ses- 
sions,"   or    "  general    or  particular    Synods ;"    and    indeed 

*  Jerome  observes  (Com.  Gal.  i.  19,)  "  By  degrees,  in  process  of  time, 
others  were  ordained  Apostles  by  those  whom  our  Lord  had  chosen,  as 
that  passage  to  the  Philippians  shows,  "  I  supposed  it  necessary  to  send 
you  Epaphroditus  your  Apostle." 

t  Constitution  of  the  Associate-Reformed  Church,  p.  475. 


1  ^ 


r  ^  ^        ^ 

250  ^    O^-  HOBART'S    APOLOGY 

V,  '\ 
there  are  no  titles  whatever  annexed  to  ecclesiastical  bodies 

supposed  to  correspond  with   the    Sessions  and   Synods  of 

Presbyterians.     Of  course,  according  to  your  argument,  there 

can  be  no  such  bodies  of  divine  institution — and,  therefore, 

.   the  constituent  parts  of  Presbyterian  government  must  be  of 

human  invention.      Really,  sir,  (to  use  the  language  you 

apply  to  us)   I  am  afraid  "  drowsiness "  is   not  peculiar  to 

the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  and  that  even  the  vigorous  Dr. 

Mason  sometimes  claims  "the  indulgence  of  a  nap." 

But  further,  sir,  that  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
church,  the  existence  of  three  persons  in  one  God,  has  no 
name  applied  to  it  in  scripture.  s-Therefore,  according  to 
your  reasoning,  it  cannot  be  revealed  in  the  word  of  God  ;  it 
is  of  human  invention.  Here  you  side  with  "  those  great 
luminaries  of  wisdom.  Dr.  Priestley  and  his  compeers." 
They  urge  exactly  the  same  reasoning  against  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  that  you  do  against  Bishops.  That  such  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  should  have  no  name  affixed  to  it  in  scripture 
(they  contend,)  "  so  far  surpasses  all  the  powers  of  belief,  that 
the  proof  of  its  existence  is  almost  if  not  altogether  impossi- 
ble." No,  sir,  we  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the 
same  way  that  we  prove  the  existence  of  the  first  grade  of 
the  ministry.  From  the  acts  and  the  powers  of  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  we  are  justifiable  in  concluding  that  they  are 
equal  with  God  the  Father ;  and  to  this  doctrine  of  three 
persons  in  one  God,  we  give  the  name  of  Trinity,  which  is 
no  where  found  in  scripture.  From  the  acts  and  powers  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  we  conclude,  that  they  are  a  superior 
grade  of  the  ministry,  and  to  them  and  their  successors  we 
give  the  title  of  Bishops. 

The  truth  is — the  distinction  and  the  nature  of  scripture 
officers  are  to  be  laiown  certainly  from  their  powers  and  ju- 
risdiction, and  not  from  their  names  merely.  And  for  these 
obvious  reasons,  which  Mr.  M'Leod  has  assigned  with  equal 
justice  and  candour :  "  Names  are  of  little  real  value."  "  It 
is  for  the  thing,  not  the  name  we  should  contend." 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  251" 

"  Truly,  sir,  should  you  go  on  as  you  have  commenced, 
I  do  not  think  that  the  Christian's  Magazine  is  "likely  to 
fill  the"  advocates  of  Episcopacy  '^with  any  very  great 
alarm." 


LETTER    XVI. 


Sir, 

To  disprove  bold  charges  requires  many  more  words 
than  to  make  them.  On  the  score  of  conciseness,  therefore, 
you  certainly  have  the  advantage  over  me.  It  has  been  my 
object  minutely  to  expose  the  injustice  of  your  charges,  and 
to  exhibit  a  general  view  of  the  principles  of  Episcopacy,  and 
of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  it. 

The  obnoxious  colours  in  which  j^ou  represented  my  prin- 
ciples in  the  first  number  of  the  Christian's  Magazine,  jus- 
tify me  in  contrasting  your  religious  system  with  my  own, 
that  the  public  may  judge  whether  your  principles  or  mine 
most  merit  the  charge  of  being  "arrogant"  and  of  "  deep- 
toned  horror." 

You  observe,  "  Whether  a  man  shall  go  to  heaven  or  to 
hell,  will  be  decided  by  another  inquiry  than  whether  he  was 
an  Episcopalian,  a  Presbyterian,  or  an  Independent."  On 
3'our  principles  the  inquiry  is  fixed  to  this  point,  "  whether 
he  is  one  of  the  elect."  On  your  principles  the  decree  of 
God  sends  some  to  heaven,  and  others  to  hell.  Take  the 
words  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith:  "  By  the  de- 
cree of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and 
angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore- 
ordained to  everlasting  death;"*  and  this  predestination, 
having  no  respect  to  their  use  or  abuse  of  the  means  of  grace, 
is  absolute  and  unconditional.  On  your  principles  guilt  is 
brought  on  all  mankind,  not  merely  (as  anti-Calvinists  main- 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  iii.  sect.  3.  The  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  is  the  standard  of  doctrine  of  all  the  Presbyterian  Churches. 


252  hobart's  apology 

tain)  by  those  sins  which,  through  divine  grace,  it  was  in 
their  power  to  avoid,  but  for  a  sin  which  they  never  com- 
mitted, for  the  sin  of  their  forefather  Adam ;  'and  for  this  sin 
they  are  doomed  to  everlasting  woe.*  From  this  everlasting 
woe  none  are,  none  can  be  saved,  but  a  certain  portion,  se- 
lected in  a  sovereign  manner,  from  this  condemned  mass  of 
mankind.  While  all  mankind  in  their  fallen  state  must  have 
been  the  objects  of  the  compassion  of  the  Father  of  mercies, 
yet  (according  to  your  system)  for  a  select  number  only  did 
he  provide  a  Saviour.  For  them,  and  for  them  only,  did  his 
eternal  Son  sojourn  in  the  veil  of  flesh,  travail  in  agony  of 
spirit,  and  pour  out  his  soul  unto  death.  They  only  in  God's 
sovereign  time  are  seized  by  irresistible  grace,  justified,  sanc- 
tified, saved,  without  the  possibility  by  any  misconduct  of 
forfeiting  a  salvation  which  a  divine  decree  ensures  to  them, 
to  which  irresistible  grace  infallibly  conducts  them."f"  The' 
"  hinging  point"  on  which  their  salvation  turns,  is  the  ever- 
lasting decree  of  God. 

As  for  the  rest  of  mankind,  the  "  many"  who  go  "  the 
broad  way  to  destruction,"  according  to  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem, they  remain  for  ever  under  the  curse  of  Adam's  sin. 
Equally  helpless,  equally  related,  as  the  creatures  of  his 
hand,  to  the  Father  of  mercies,  with  the  elect  objects  of  his 
•  favour,  yet  on  them  the  Redeemer  never  cast  one  look  of 
compassion ;  for  them  he  never  shed  one  drop  of  blood  ;  to 
them  he  never  dispenses  one  spark  of  effectual  grace. J  And 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  vi.  sect.  6. 

t  "  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by  the 
eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  foreordained  all  the  means 
thereunto."  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  iii.  6.  "  Those  whom  God  hath 
accepted  in  his  beloved,  effectually  called  and  sanctified  by  his  spirit,  can 
neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace ;  but  shall  cer- 
'  tainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved."  Confession 
C^  of  Faith,  chap.  xvii.  1. 

^'  X  "  Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justi- 
^  fied,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only."  Confession  of 
^    Paith,  chap.  iii.  6. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  253 

yet  in  this  state,  without  a  Redeemer,  without  any  interest 
in  his  atonement,  any  participation  of  his  grace,  of  course 
without  the  possibility  of  being  saved,  they  are  to  receive  the 
offers  of  salvation  !  Mockery  of  their  wretchedness ! !  Ac- 
cording to  this  system,  thousands,  millions,  myriads  of  hap- 
less mortals  will  clank  the  chains  of  everlasting  torment,  will 
roll  in  the  fires  that  never  will  be  quenched,  and  will  be 
gnawed  by  the  worm  that  never  dies,  for  the  sin  of  another, 
for  the  sin  of  Adam ;  from  the  imputed  guilt  of  which,  left  as 
they  were  by  the  decree  of  God,  without  the  atonement, 
without  the  grace  of  the  Redeemer,  they  possessed  no 
means  of  escape.*  According  to  this  system,  the  sinner  dies, 
the  anticipated  torments  of  hell  racking  his  soul,  and  its 
groans  bursting  from  his  lips,  because  God,  for  the  "  mani- 
festation of  his  glory,"  shut  him  out,  by  a  decree  of  reproba- 
tion, from  the  number  of  the  elect.!     According  to  your  sys- 

*  "  The  guilt  of  this  sin"  (the  sin  of  Adam)  "  was  imputed — to  all 
their  posterity."  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  vi.  3  and  6.  From  this 
guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  from  this  eternal  death  to  which  all  mankind  are 
doomed  in  consequence  of  it,  "  none  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  &c.  but  the 
elect  only."  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  iii.  6.  For  "the  rest  of  man- 
kind, God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the 
glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain 
them  to  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 
justice."  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  iii.  7.  "  Every  sin,  both  original 
and  actual,  doth  in  its  mere  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby 
he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  &c.  and  so  made  subject  to  death 
with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal."  Confession  of  Faith, 
chap.  vi.  6.  For  the  sin  of  Adam  then  those  whom  God  "  passed  by" 
were  ordained  to  dishonour  and  wrath. 

f  "  Quos  Deus  preterit,  reprobat" — says  Calvin.  Institutes,  lib.  iii. 
xxiii.  1.  "  Whom  God  jsasses  %,  he  reprobates."  And  Calvin  further 
says,  "  But  those  whom  he  appointeth  to  damnation,  to  them  we  say  by 
his  just  and  irreprehensible,  but  also  incomprehensible  judgment,  the 
entry  of  life  is  blocked  up."  Calvin's  Institutes,  lib.  iii.  xxi.  7.  Calvin 
styles  the  decree  of  God,  by  which  "  the  fall  of  Adam  did  wrap  up  in 
eternal  death  so  many  nations  with  their  children  being  infants,  with- 
out remedy" — horribile  decretum,  horrible  decree.  And  well  he  might. 
Any  school-boy  who  can  turn  over  his  dictionary  knows  that  horribilis 

22 


254  hobart's  apology 

tem,  '•^  elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  ;"*  and  as  "  none  are  saved  but  the  elect  only,"! 
those  infants  dying  in  infancy  who  are  not  of  the  elect, 
are  not  saved.  J  Alas  !  then,  even  those  endearing  in- 
fants, blessed  by  our  Lord  himself  as  the  emblems  of  inno- 
cence, are  perhaps  destined  to  be  torn  from  the  cherishing 
bosom  of  their  mothers,  and  to  be  sent  to  people  the  regions 
of  the  damned  !  Ye  mothers  !  does  not  the  bare  possibihty 
that  the  engaging  prattlings  of  your  lovely  babes,  may  to- 
morrow be  changed  into  the  groans  of  fiends,  plant  a  dagger 
in  your  bosoms  more  agonizing  than  the  vengeful  dart  that 
drinks  up  the  current  of  life  !— My  heart  shudders  !  Right- 
eous God !  who  ever  delightest  in  mercy !  shall  man  trans- 
form thee  into  a  demon  like  an  insatiate  Moloch,  delighting  in 
the  perdition  of  the  creatures  of  thy  hand  ?  No,  thou  holy, 
thou  just,  thou  merciful  Parent  of  the  universe  !  the  system 

has  the  signification  of  awful  as  well  as  horrible,  and  as  I  understand 
that  it  is  your  intention  to  take  me  to  task  for  translating  it  horrible,  and 
to  overwhelm  your  readers  with  a  flood  of  learning  to  prove  that  this  is 
not  its  most  common  acceptation,  I  think  it  proper  to  state  that  Topladt 
has  anticipated  you  on  this  subject.  He  adduces  many  examples  in  which 
horribilis  is  used  in  the  acceptation,  awful,  mysterious,  wonderful,  and 
contends  that  Calvin  used  it  in  this  acceptation  in  the  sentence  referred 
to.  I  take  the  liberty,  however,  of  contending,  that  the  plain,  fair  con- 
struction of  the  whole  passage  implies,  that  Calvin  deemed  this  decree 
horrible,  abhorrent  to  the  reason  and  feelings  of  man :  but  this  is  very 
different  from  believing  that  the  decree  was  so  in  itself,  to  the  divine 
mind.  However  horrible  the  decree  might  appear  to  human  reason, 
Calvin,  believing  it  to  be  from  God,  would  also  believe  it  to  be  just  and 
good.  In  a  translation  of  the  Institutes  of  Calvin,  made  and  published 
under  the  sanction  of  Presbyterian  divines  at  Glasgow  (1762,)  I  find  the 
words  horribile  decretum,  translated  terrible  decree.  I  have  no  objection 
that  my  translation  should  ba-so  corrected,  and  instead  of  calling  this  de- 
cree a  horrible  decree,  let  it  be  styled  a  terrible  decree  ! 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  x.  3.  f  Chap.  iii.  6. 

X  Had  it  been  the  intention  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  to  include  all 
infants  dying  in  infancy  among  the  number  of  the  elect,  the  section 
would  have  run  in  some  such  form  as  the  following  :  "  All  infants  dying 
in  infancy,  as  they  are  of  the  number  of  the  elect,  are  regenerated  and 
saved,"  &c. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  255 

which  clothes  thee  with  these  terrors  is  disclaimed  by  reason 
and  by  thy  holy  word. 

I  am  no  more  compelled  to  account  for  many  pious  and 
learned  persons  having  embraced  this  system,  among  whom, 
it  is  not  to  be  denied,  have  ranked  some  eminent  divines  of 
the  Church  of  England,  than  to  account  for  many  pious  and 
learned  persons  having  embraced  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  Many  doctrines  maybe,  must  be  incomprehensible: 
but  the  divine  Author  of  our  senses  and  our  reason  will 
never  require  us  to  believe  what  palpablj^  contradicts  them. 
I  pretend  not  to  judge  for  others,  or  to  measure,  by  my  own, 
the  capacity  of  their  minds.  But  for  myself  I  must  confess, 
that  I  could  more  readily  be  brought  to  believe  that  a  being 
of  infinite  power  could  change  bread  and  wine  into  the  body 
and  blood  of  a  man,  and  their  properties  and  sensible  quah- 
ties  still  remain  the  same ;  than  that  an  infinitely  just  and 
merciful  God  would  bring  men  into  existence,  and  without 
any  regard  to  the  use  or  abuse  of  the  talents  and  means  of 
grace  entrusted  to  them,  doom  them  by  an  absolute  decree  to 
everlasting  perdition.  With  respect  to  the  moral  aspect  of 
these  doctrines  on  the  attributes  and  character  of  God,  there 
is  no  kind  of  comparison.  Transubstantiation  violates  none 
of  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Deity  ;  absolute  predestination 
strips  him  of  every  attribute  that  can  render  him  the  object 
of  admiration  and  love. 

View  now,  sir,  the  system  of  religious  truth  embraced  hy 
those  whom  you  denounce  for  holding  positions  of  "  deep- 
toned  horror."  The  sin  of  Adam  has  entailed  on  his  pos- 
terity a  corrupt  and  depraved  nature.  Though  this  corrup- 
tion or  original  sin  in  "  every  man,'"  "  deserves  God's 
wrath  and  damnation,"*  yet  none  will  be  condemned  for  it 
but  those  who  refuse  the  means  of  redemption  from  its  domi- 
nion, and  from  the  guilt  of  their  actual  sins.  For  the  adora- 
ble Son  of  God  has  made  an  atonement  for  the  "  sins  of  the 
world,"  "  has  tasted  death  for  every  man."t     "  He  came  to 

*  Art.  IX.  of  the  Church.  f  Heb.  ii.  9. 


256  hobart's  apology 

be  a  lamb  without  spot,  who  should  take  away  the  sins  of 
the  world.'''' "^  "  He  made  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  obla- 
tion and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." | 
Thus  all  men,  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  placed  in  a  state  of 
salvation,  in  which  their  eternal  destiny  will  depend  only  on 
"the  things  done  in  the  body."  The  grace  of  God  alone 
begins,  carries  on,  and  perfects  the  spiritual  life.  God's  p-e- 
venting  "grace  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal"  J — 
given  to  every  man  in  sufficient  degree  to  enable  him  to  work 
out  his  salvation.  But  the  scripture  has  told  us  that  we 
may  "resist  this  grace,"  "do  despite  unto  it,"  "  quench  it," 
and  provoke  God  to  take  "it  from  us."  While,  therefore, 
we  believe  that  God  worketh  in  us  by  his  spirit,  that  "  we 
may  have  a  good  will,  and  worketh  with  us  when  we  have 
that  good  will,"  §  we  are  also  to  "  work  out  our  own  salva- 
tion with  fear  and  trembling."  The  condemnation,  there- 
fore, of  the  impenitent  will  be,  that  they  "resisted  and 
grieved  God's  holy  spirit,"  that  they  "  would  not  come 
unto  him  and  receive  life."||  Where  the  name  of  Christ  is 
not  proclaimed,  his  atonement  extends,  his  grace  operates, 
and  leads  to  his  everlasting  favour  those  "  who  having  not 
the  law,  yet  do  the  things  contained  in  the  law."  Where 
the  glad  tidings  of  salvation   are  proclaimed,  men  must  be 

*  Art.  XV.  of  the  Church.  f  Communion  Service. 

t  1  Cor.  xii.  7.  §  Art.  X.  of  the  Church. 

II  From  the  above  view  it  appears  that  the  Articles  of  the  Church  do 
not  maintain  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinism ;  that  they  do  not  maintain  that 
all  but  the  elect  will  be  damned  for  Adam's  sin,  as  well  as  their  actual 
sins ;  and  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect  only.  They  do  not  maintain  that 
the  grace  of  God  works  irresistibly,  that  man  is  passive  in  conversion^ 
and  that  the  elect  can  never  finally  fall  away  from  grace.  The  article 
concerning  predestination  merely  decrees  the  determination  of  God  to 
bring  "those  whom  he  hath  chosen  in  Christ"  "to  everlasting  salva- 
tion." But  it  does  not  assert,  as  the  Calvinistic  Confessions  of  Faith  do, 
that  this  choice  was  made  without  any  "  foreknov^ledge"  of  the  use  which 
they  would  make  of  the  means  of  grace  and  salvation.  It  is  also  entire- 
ly silent  on  that  important  article  of  Calvinism,  that  God  passed  by  the 
rest  of  mankind,  and  ordained  them  to  dishonour  and  wrath. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  257 

united  to  him  by  a  lively  and  holy  faith.  The  blessings  of 
his  salvation  are  visibly  sealed  to  believers  by  the  ordinances 
of  the  church ;  and  these  ordinances  are  to  be  administered 
only  by  those  who  are  "  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron,"  by 
a  valid  external  commission.  On  these  principles  all  are 
saved  through  the  power  of  the  Redeemer's  blood,  who, 
through  his  grace,  seek  to  know  and  to  do  the  will  of  their 
heavenly  Master.  Can  a  system  more  charitable  be  required 
of  me }  Let  the  public  judge.  Let  candour  and  justice 
look  on  your  system  and  on  mine,  and  pronounce  sentence. 
Let  them  say  which  of  us  holds  positions  of  "  deep-toned 
horror." 

It  may  be  said  that  there  is  the  same  difficulty  in  the  anti- 
Calvinistic  as  in  the  Calvinistic  system  :  that,  on  the  anti- 
Calvinistic  system,  as  the  Almighty  foresaw  that  numbers  of 
the  human  race  would  finally  perish,  with  this  foreknowledge 
creating  them,  he  decreed  their  perdition.  But,  on  the  Cal- 
vinistic scheme,  he  decreed  this  perdition,  not  because  he 
foresaw  they  would  incur  or  deserve  it ;  he  decreed  it  with- 
out any  respect  to  his  foreknowledge  of  the  use  which  they 
would  make  of  the  means  of  grace.*  He  provided  for  them 
no  Saviour,  no  atonement,  no  effectual  grace,  without  which 
they  could  not  be  saved.  On  the  anti-Calvinistic  scheme, 
he  provided  for  them  a  Saviour,  an  atonement,  and  the  influ- 
ences of  divine  grace ;  and,  therefore,  the  ground  of  their 
perdition  is,  that  with  the  most  powerful  motives  and  ade- 
quate means  they  freely  "  chose  darkness  rather  than  light." 
On  the  Calvinistic  system,  as  no  atonement  was  made  for 
them,  and  no  grace  given  to  them,  they  could  not  be  saved. 
It  is  the  decree,  and  consequently  the  will  of  God,  that  they 
should  not  be  saved.  On  the  anti-Calvinistic  system,  as 
both  an  atonement  and  means  of  grace  were  provided,  they 
would  have  been  saved  if  they  had  not  resisted  this  grace 
and  contemned  this  atonement.  The  difficulties  in  the  anti- 
Calvinistic  system  arise  only  when  we   attempt  to  investi- 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  iii.  5. 

22* 


268  hobart's  apology 

gate  the  incomprehensible  subject  of  the  divine  foreknow- 
ledge. It  is  of  importance  to  observe,  that  thej^  do  not  arise 
from  the  system  itself.  Every  thing  in  it  is  luminous,  lovely 
and  benevolent — the  Deity  providing  a  Saviour  for  all  his 
fallen  creatures,  conferring  his  grace  on  them  all,  so  that  if 
they  perish,  it  is  because  they  "  would  not  come  unto  him, 
that  they  might  have  life."  But  the  difficulties  in  the  Cal- 
vinistic  scheme  are  essential  to  the  system  itself.  For  in  it 
we  find  no  Saviour,  no  mercy,  no  grace  provided  for  any  but 
the  elect^  absolutely,  unconditionally  elected. 

The  temple  of  Calvinism,  dark  and  dismaying,  rears  its 
gloomy  spire  amidst  perpetual  clouds,  rolling  in  blackness. 
From  their  lowering  bosom  burst  forth,  with  frightful  glare, 
the  awful  peals — unconditional  salvation  to  the  elect — 
PERDITION  to  the  REST  OF  MANKIND.  From  its  dreary 
courts,  traversed  with  fearful  step  by  crowds  of  hapless 
sinners,  is"  excluded  the  light  of  hope.  Only  the  elect 
are  admitted  into  its  holy  place;  where  reigns,  not  the 
Father  of  mercies,  the  God  of  lovCy  whose  throne  is  goodness, 
whose  sceptre  is  mercy;  but  an  arbitrary  sovereign, 
whose  throne  is  power,  whose  sceptre  is  vengeance,  and  the 
arm  that  wields  it,  caprice.  For  while  a  few  select  favour- 
ites are  exalted  to  his  favour,  the  great  mass  of  mortals, 
*'  not  more  sinful  than  they,"  are  consigned  to  perdition. 
Ah !  how  appalling  the  "  confused  noises  "  that  burst  from 
this  frightful  dome.  The  proud  triumphs  of  the  favourites  of 
a  resistless  sovereign,  who  are  made,  in  spite  of  themselves, 
the  subjects  of  his  favour,  mingling  with  the  groans  of  the 
reprobate — groans  embittered  by  the  reflection  that  the  Sa- 
viour died  not  for  them,  that  the  grace  "  without  which  they 
could  do  nothing  "  was  never  extended  to  them — O  my  soul, 
into  the  secret  of  this  council  come  thou  not ;  unto  this  as- 
sembly, mine  honour,  be  not  thou  united. 

I  state  the  views  under  which  Calvinism  appears  to  my 
mind.  I  mean  no  injurious  reflections  on  those  who  main- 
tain its  peculiar  doctrines,  and  who  of  course  do  not  view 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  259 

them  in  the  same  light  with  myself.  Many  persons  who 
profess  the  peculiar  tenets  of  Calvinism,  are  my  particular 
friends ;  endeared  to  me  by  their  piety,  their  worth  and 
talents.  But  of  these  doctrines,  by  whomsoever  maintained, 
I  must  say — let  them  perish.  In  my  humble  judgment, 
they  are  hostile  to  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  system,  to  rea- 
son, and  every  amiable  feeling  of  the  heart.  They  cherish 
the  prejudices  of  the  infidel  against  a  religion  which  contains 
doctrines  so  gloomy  and  terrible.  They  often  sweep  with 
the  tempests  of  despair,  the  bosom  of  the  timid  and  humble 
Christian ;  while  they  buoy  up  with  presumptuous  triumph 
many  who,  above  all  others,  ought  not  to  "  be  high-minded, 
but  to  fear."  Do  they  ascribe  all  the  work  of  man's  salva- 
tion to  God  ?  "  Not  unto  us,  O  Lord,  but  unto  thy  name  be 
the  praise,"  should  indeed  be  the  language  of  every  Christian 
before  his  Creator  and  Saviour,  from  whom  alone  he  derives 
his  being,  the  means  of  grace  and  forgiveness,  and  the  hope 
of  glory.  But  God  cannot  be  honoured  by  the  service  of 
those  whom,  by  an  irresistible  decree,  he  compels  into  his 
service.  Man,  through  divine  grace,  is  free  to  accept  or  to 
reject  the  mercy  offered  to  him.  And,  therefore,  he  is  com- 
manded to  "work  out  his  salvation,  for  it  is  God  who  work- 
eth  in  him  to  will  and  to  do."  By  a  voluntary  service  through 
grace,  he  glorifies  God;  and  not  by  a  service  to  which  a 
sovereign  decree  devotes  him,  to  which  irresistible  grace 
impels  him. 

An  imperious  principle  of  self-defence  has  called  forth 
these  letters.  I  had  hoped  to  have  been  permitted  to  enforce 
on  ^Episcopalians  the  principles  of  their  church  without  pro- 
voking the  censure  of  others ;  while  I  left  to  them  the  same 
right  which  I  claimed  to  myself.  In  confining  originally  my 
remarks  on  Episcopal  principles  to  books  addressed  to  Epis- 
copalians and  calculated  for  their  use,  I  surely  observed  the 
dictates  of  prudence  and  decorum.  The  errors  which  you 
and  others  conceived  to  be  contained  in  these  books,  might 
have  been  sufficiently  counteracted  by  private  conversation, 


260 


HOBART'S    APOLOGY 


by  instructions  from  the  pulpit,  by  manuals  of  faith  and  order 
published  for  your  own  people,  of  which,  if  there  had  been 
no  personal  reference  to  me,  I  should  not  have  felt  myself 
compelled  to  take  notice.  But  another  course  has  been 
chosen.  My  principles  have  been  attacked  in  the  newspa- 
pers. My  name  has  been  bandied  on  the  tongues  of  the 
thoughtless,  in  disgraceful  alliance  with /oo/ and  bigot.  And 
to  sink  me  yet  lower  in  the  pit  of  infamy,  you  represent  me 
as  holding  principles  which  consign  to  perdition  the  brightest 
saints  that  ever  adorned  the  church  on  earth,  or  will  chant 
forth  the  hallelujahs  of  heaven.  I  am  denounced,  con- 
demned, and  stretched  on  the  rack  of  proud  and  overbearing 
criticism,  in  a  periodical  publication,  from  the  privilege  of 
defending  myself  in  which  I  am  proscribed ;  for  the  circula- 
tion of  which  unexampled  pains  have  been  taken  ;  and  which 
hundreds  will  peruse  who  will  never  see  my  vindication,  or 
who  will  turn  with  horror  from  any  production  of  one  who 
makes  the  only  alternative  "  Episcopacy  or  Perdition." 

But  all  this  and  more  will  not  intimidate  me  from  defend- 
ing the  principles  of  my  church.  I  mean  not  indeed  to  dis- 
dain the  opinion  of  the  world.  I  boast  not  of  that  insensibi- 
lity which  never  glows  at  the  soothing  voice  of  merited  com- 
mendation, nor  sinks  under  the  frown  of  just  censure.  Pre- 
cious to  my  soul  have  ever  been  the  friendship  and  the  love 
of  the  virtuous.  I  view  the  chief  happiness  of  this  world 
as  consisting,  next  to  the  joys  of  religion,  in  the  delightful 
intercourse  of  friendship  and  affection.  My  feelings  are  par- 
ticularly wounded  b}^  your  system  of  denunciation,  because 
it  tends  to  close  against  me  the  bosoms  of  many  in  whose 
hearts  I  should  wish  to  find  a  place.  But  there  are  princi- 
ples which  I  should  ever  desire  to  be  paramount  in  mj^  soul — 
the  love  of  truth,  the  love  of  duty.  God  grant  that  Imay  ever 
feel  that  sacred  independence  which  will  never  sacrifice  these 
principles  to  considerations  of  personal  interest  or  feeling. 
I  strike  out  into  no  new  paths.  I  advocate  no  new  princi- 
ples.    I  arrogate  no  new  discoveries.     The  good  old  path 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  261 

in  which  the  Fathers  of  the  primitive  church  followed  their 
blessed  Master  to  martyrdom  and  glory ;  in  which  the  vene- 
rable Fathers  of  the  Church  of  England  found  rest  to  their 
souls — is  the  path  in  which  I  would  wish  to  lead,  to  a  "  rest 
eternal  in  the  heavens,"  myself  and  those  that  hear  me. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  have  addressed  to  you,  I  have 
considered  you  only  as  the  Editor  of  the  Christian's  Maga- 
zine. And  in  this  character  only,  my  principles  compel  me 
to  be  hostile  to  j^ou.  I  should  despise  myself  did  I  not 
cherish  the  sentiments  of  sincere  respect  for  a  Scholar  of 
distinguished  attainments,  for  -a  Divine  eloquent,  zealous 
and  exemjDlary  in  the  discharge  of  his  high  functions.  Con- 
test like  that  to  which  the  Christian's  Magazine  calls  me, 
suits  not  the  temper  of  my  soul.  I  think  it  should  have  been 
"  made  of  sterner  stuff."  Were  I  not  supported  by  that  con- 
sciousness of  rectitude  ;  above  all,  by  that  sacred  zeal  for 
the  cause  of  truth,  which  case  the  soul  as  with  adamant,  I 
would  lament  the  hour,  when,  in  the  innocence  of  my  heart, 
I  ushered  to  the  world  a  performance,  concerning  which  I 
only  indulged  the  humble  hope  that  it  might  tend  to  revive 
in  some  degree,  among  Episcopalians,  the  spirit  of  primitive 
piety,  truth  and  order.  That  performance,  though  addressed 
to  Episcopalians,  and  designed  for  them,  has  excited  in  others 
an  ire  which  no  explanations  can  moderate  or  appease.  It 
has  excited  an  ire  which  repels  with  disdain,  that  charity 
which  embraces  in  her  wide-extended  arms  the  sincere  in- 
quirers after  truth,  by  whatever  name  distinguished.  Until 
that  performance  brought  me  forward,  a  mark  for  the  arrows 
of  the  vengeful  polemic,  I  had  passed  the  "  noiseless  tenour 
of  my  way."  The  seats  of  a  college,  from  which  I  had  but 
a  few  years  emerged,  had  cherished  in  my  soul  a  love  of 
science,  an  ardent  thirst  for  truth,  but  had  not  furnished  me 
with  that  breast-plate  of  apathy  which  defends  the  bosom 
from  those  keen  darts  of  scorn,  invective  and  denunciation, 
that  are  hurled  on  the  combatant  in  the  field  of  controversy. 
The  bosom  of  friendship  on  which   I  had  there  reclined ; 


2^  hobart's  apology 

"  the  sweet  converse  of  friends,"  among  whom  it  is  my  pride 
to  number  the  writers  who,  under  the  signatures  of  a  Lay- 
man and  Cyprian,*  defended  the  Episcopal  cause,  among 
whom  it  is  my  pride  to  rank  one  who  bears  a  Christian  name 
different  from  my  own,|  had  not  prepared  me  to  smother  that 
sensibihty  which,  leaping  over  every  dissonance  of  opinion, 
fixes  with  ardour  and  tenderness  on  the  virtuous  and  kindred 
spirit.  But  my  feelings  have  beguiled  me  into  a  strain  which 
some  persons  may  deem  idle,  at  which  others  will  perhaps 
raise  the  sneer  of  scorn.  I  stop.  It  were  folly,  as  the  con- 
scientious advocate  for  truth,  it  were  disgraceful  to  mourn, 
that  her  holy  interests  have  urged  me  into  the  field  of  con- 
troversy. My  banner  is,  evangelical  truth,  apostolic 
ORDER.  Firm  and  undaunted,  though  the  spear  raised  against 
me  be  tremendous  as  that  with  which  Goliath  of  Gath  threat- 
ened to  crush  the  stripling  David,  I  must  summon  to  the  de- 
fence of  my  sacred  cause  whatever  powers  nature  (alas  !  as 
yet  indeed  too  little  cultivated  by  the  laborious  hand  of 
study)  has  bestowed  upon  me  ;  whatever  ardour,  whatever 
zeal  nature  has  enkindled  in  my  bosom.  It  were  vain  to 
rest  here.  I  must  arm  mj^self  by  imploring  the  grace  of  him 
whose  glory  it  is  to  make  often  the  humblest  instrument  the 
victorious  champion  of  his  truth. 

Pro  ecclesid  Dei,  pro  ecclesid  Dei.  Like  the  venerable 
prelate  J  who  chose  these  words  as  the  standard  of  his  wishes, 
his  duties,  his  labours,  his  dying  prayers,  every  minister 
should  be  supremely  devoted  to  the  Church  of  God. 
When  you.  Sir,  survey  the  heresies  that  deform  the  fair 
face  of  the  Zion  of  the  Lord,  the  schisms  that  distract  and 
rend  asunder  her  members,  I  feel  confident  that  from  the 
heart  you  will  join  with  me  in  the  following  prayer  of  one  § 
who,  having  sung  in  the  church  on  earth  its  sweetest  strains, 
now   rests   in   hope   of  chaunting   forth   from   the    highest 

*  T.  Y.  H.  Esq.  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  B.  f  Rev.  Dr.  K. 

X  Archbishop  Whitgift.  §  Bishop  HoRira:. 


FOR    APOSTOLIC    ORDER.  263 

seats  of  the  church  triumphant  "  the  praises  of  God  and  of 
the  Lamb." 

*'  Come,  O  thou  divine  Spirit  of  peace  and  love,  who  didst 
reside  in  the  soul  of  the  holy  Jesus,  descend  into  his  mysti- 
cal body ;  and  fill  us,  who  compose  it,  with  all  his  heavenly 
tempers  ;  put  an  end  to  heresies,  heal  all  schisms,  cause  bit- 
ter contention  to  cease,  abolish  every  enmity,  and  make  us 
to  be  of  one  mind  in  thy  holy  city ;  that  so,  '  peace  being 
within  her  walls,'  her  citizens  may  give  themselves  to  every 
profitable  employment,  and  '  plenteousness'  of  grace,  wisdom 
and  truth,  as  well  as  of  earthly  blessings,  may  be  in  all  her 
^  palaces.'  Thus  will  she  become  a  lively  portrait  of  that 
place  which  is  prepared  for  them  that  love  one  another, 
where,  with  one  heart,  and  one  voice,  they  shall  ascribe 
^  salvation  and  glory  to  God  and  to  the  Lamb." 

In  offering  this  prayer,  I  trust  we  can  meet  at  the  footstool 
of  the  throne  of  grace  ;  and  in  the  spirit  of  peace  and  amity 
which  it  inspires,  I  subscribe  myself 

Your  obedient  servant, 

J.  H.  HOBART. 

June^  1807. 


INDEX 


Page 
Absurdity  of  supposed  change  from  Presbyterianism  to  Episco- 
pacy in  the  early  Church, 200-210 

Adverse  circumstances    of  Protestant  Episcopal   Church    in  this 

country, 235 

Aerius — an  early  heretic — denied  Episcopacy,  -         -         -         -        209 
^ra  of  universal  establishment  of  Episcopacy — different  views,  200-208 

Aggression,  charge  of,  repelled, 34,  38 

Alexandria,  Church  of, 121,  182 

Alleged  deficiencies  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal   Church,  223,  232 

Antioch,  Church  at, -         -     196 

Angels  in  Revelations,  Bishops,       -         -  -         -  157 

Apostolic  Practice — when  binding  on  the  Church,        -        -      158,  159 

—  —  when  temporary,  .        .         _         159 

—  Succession — its  necessity,      -         -        .         -       138,148,150 

—  —  acknowledged  by  Presbyterians,  -         -         149 

—  —          defended  by  Rev.  W.  Law,  1st  letter,      -       150-153 
Appointment  of  Bishops, 127, 219 

B 
Baptismal  Regeneration,      -.-.-.--    230 
Beattie,  Dr.  quoted, 231 

Beza — approves  Episcopacy, 94,  113 

Bingham,  Origines  Eccles.,  quoted    -    * 121 

Bishops,  whether  different  order  from  Presbyters,         -         .         -     117 

—  possess  distinct  powers,      -         -         -         -    118, 136,  166,  242 

—  need  not  actually  exercise  them,     -         -         -         -      119,  124 

—  not  affected  by  extent  of  their  charge,  -         -  120,  125 

—  •  rule  in  primitive  Church, 122 

—  in  Scotland — when  deprived, 123 

—  exercise  of  power,  of  ecclesiastical  regulation,  121,125,130,219 

—  so  also  their  election  or  appointment,  -         -         -  127,  219 

—  ordination  alone  vests  the  office,   -         -         -         -       127,  219 

—  necessary  to  outward  being  of  a  Church,        -         .         .         131 

—  of  Divine  Institution,     -  ' 132,  136 

—  acknowledged  by  Church  of  England,         -         -       133,  135  n. 

—  successors  of  the  Apostles, 136,  137 

—  powers  of,  in  this  country,  -        -      ■•  -         -         -        219 

—  scriptural  use  of  the  term, 116,243 

( See  Episcopacy. ) 

Blondel,  quoted, 169,  200 «. 

23 


266  INDEX. 

Page 
Bowden  (Rev.  Dr.)  letter  to  Dr.  Stiles,  quoted,  -  -  -  -  199 
Butler,  Bishop,  on  the  Divine  commands,        -         .        -        _  76 

Burden  of  proof  on  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  -        -        -        -    108 

C 
Calvin,  on  the  forgiveness  of  sins, -  84 

—  —      necessity  of  the  ministerial  office,  -         -        -         -      84 

—  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,        -         -         -  91,  92,  99,  111,  114,  165 

—  disclaims  parity  of  ministers, 94,  165 

—  —      antiquitj' for  Presbyterianism,     -         -         -         -94,166 

—  denounces  separation  from  the  Church  when  not  fundamen- 
tally sinful,     103-105 

—  letter  to  Edward  VI. 110 

—  applied  for  Episcopal  orders, 112 

—  his  ordination  doubtful,         -.-_->     143  n. 

—  —  view  of  1  Tim.  iv.  14, 155  n. 

Calvinism  delineated, -  251-259 

Casaubon  on  the  Church  of  England, 95 

Change  of  name  from  Apostle  to  Bishop,  -----        248 

—  —  names  does  not  presuppose  a  change  of  things,     -         -     247 

—  from  Presbyterianism  to  Episcopacy  incredible,  201-205,  210 

No  record  of  it, 205-207 

Charity  exemplified, 223,225,228,229 

Christian's  Magazine — Its  editor's  intemperate  denunciations,  7, 18-25,  33 

—  —  —  despotism  and  arrogance,  -         -      25-30, 240 

—  —          —  exhibition  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopa- 
cy,          30,31 

—  —  —  review  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,        13,  30,  73 

—  —  —  charge  of  aggression  repelled,        -         34,  38 

—  —  —    —      that  commmunion  with  Episcopal 
priesthood  is  made  essential  to  salvation,        -         -         -         -     51, 59 

—  —  —    —      that  particular  views  of  external 
order  are  made  the  hinging  point  of  salvation,   -        -        -        -      51 

refuted, 52-54,  67,  85 

—  —  —  unfair  representations,  -         -         -   56,  58, 59 

—  —          —  charge  that  external  order  is  put  on  a  level 
with  Christ's  merits,  refuted, 62 

applies  equally  to  Presbyterians,     -         -         -        -  70, 83 

—  —  —  misquotations, 64 

—  —  —  principles  and  assertions  examined  69-72 

—  —  —  inconsistencies  demonstrated,     -     72,  84,  107 

—  —  —  pleas  for  separation,  their  futility,  101,  102 
—  —  alone  understands  ancient  history,  -         164 

—  —  —  contradicts  Calvin,        .         -         .  .     165 

—  —  —  claim  of  superior  piety,     -         -  223, 224 

—  —          —    —    for  Presbyterianism  refuted,  -  -    249 

Church,  The,  a  visible  institution, 77 

Church  communion,  an  indispensable  duty,  -         -         -         -  47, 68 

—  —        ordinarily  essential  to  salvation,           -  -    64, 65 

—  —        to  be  maintained  through  the  Bishops,     -  65,  68,  77 

—  —        its  benefits  applied  only  to  the  believer,  -     65, 67 

—  —        by  means  of  the  sacraments,    -         -         -  68, 77 
Church  of  England,  uniform  practice  as  to  ordination,        -  44  n.  134 


INDEX.  267 

Page 
Church  of  England,  its  doctrine  on  this  point,        -         -  133,  135  n. 

Church  government,  in  what  sense  of  Divine  right,   -         -  128,  130 

—  —        not  to  be  identified  with  the  Ministry,     -         -  Jbid. 

—  —  in  the  United  States  resembles  the  civil  polity,  219 
Church  order,  its  defence  an  imperative  duty,  -  -  -  -  16 
Churchmen,  to  be  warned  against  schism,         -         -         -         .  45 

Chrysostom  (St.)  quoted, 184 

Claim  of  superior  piety  examined, 223,  224 

Congregational  Episcopacy,  its  absurdity,      -         -         -         -      195,  196 

—  —         a  modern  invention,  -         -         -         197 

Comber's  (Dean)  Companion  to  Temple,  quoted,  -  -  -  -  139 
Conventions  of   the   Protestant  Episcopal   Church,   their  nature, 

powers,  &c. 219,  221  n. 

Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  his  clergy,        -        -        -         -        93,  199 

Covenanters,  sect  of,  their  tenets,      ------    215  n. 

Cranmer's  views,  not  consistent,  -------     134 

Cyprian,  (St.)  Bishop  of  Carthage, 93, 126,  199 

—  —  his  Epistles  quoted,  -----  199  n. 
Confession  of  Faith,  (see  Presbyterian.) 

D 
Daille,  quoted, 94 

Daubeny,  Guide  to  the  Church,  quoted,        -        -        -        -        64,  107 

De  L' Angle,  quoted, 93,  97 

Difficulty  of  schism  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,        -        -    218 

Diocese,  what, -         -         -         -         120 

Diocesan  Conventions,         -         -        -        -        -        -        -        -219 

Discipline  and  rites  alterable  by  human  authority,     -        -  129,  130 

Discipline,  ecclesiastical,  want  of,  before  the  Revolution,  -  -  235 
Distinction  of  grades  in  the  ministry  to  be  proved  from  their  powers, 

not  names, 241-250 

Examples  of  this  given, 244,  245,  247 

Distinctive  principles  of  Episcopacy,         -        .         -         -116,137,144 

Divine  commands  all  obligatory, 76 

Divine  decrees, --75, 251 

Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  how  proved, 250 

Doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  stated,  -  255-258 

Dort,  Synod  of,  quoted, 95 

Du  Bosc,  quoted, -        -        -         -       ,   97 

Dupin's  character  of  St.  Jerome, 170  n. 

Duty  of  submitting  to  Episcopacy,     -        -        -         -       211,  218,  220  w. 

E 

Ecclesiastical  usage  fixed  the  names  of  the  Church  officers,  -  -  246 
Encroachments  of  Popery  easily  traced  -----  208 
Episcopacy,  tests  of,  are  Scripture  and  Antiquity,  -         -  11,  87 

—  assailed  by  passion  and  prejudice,    -         -         -        11,12,87 

—  its  distinctive  principles,  why  advocated,      15, 16,  35,  36,  43 

—  maintenance  of  its  Divine  authority  denies  the  validity  of 
non-Episcopal  ordinations, 44,  45,  54,  152 

—  early  defenders  in  Connecticut,         -        -         -        -  49 

—  "  indispensable  to  salvation  " — meaning  of  the  phrase,     52, 

59,  62 


268  INDEX. 

Page 
Episcopacy,  prescription  in  its  favour,        .        .        -        -  89,  108 

—  not  parallel  with  Popery, 90,  208 

—  Reformers  approved  of  it— {see  Testimonies)  91, 98, 109,  114 

—  retained  by  Sweden  and  Denmark,       -         -         -         -       97 

—  the  "Form"  preserved  in  Germany,         .         -         -  98 

—  Its  Divine  Authority, 115,  128 

—  —  distinctive  principles,         .         -         -         -  116,  137, 144 

—  names  of  the  three  grades  immaterial,         -         -      116,  241 

—  scripture  usage  with  respect  to  them,       -         -  116,  243 

—  immaterial  whether  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  the  same 

order,    -         - , 117 

—  powers  of  the  Bishop  superior,         -         -         -  118, 138, 246 

—  their  possession  distinct  from  their  exercise,        119, 121, 124 

—  not  affected  by  the  extent  of  their  charge,  -  120,  125 

—  rule  in  the  primitive  Church, 122 

—  power  of  the  Bishop  need  not  be  sole  and  absolute     -        125 

—  their  election  and  appointment, 127 

—  ordination  alone  vests  the  office,      .         -         -         -         127 
alleged  differences  of  opinion  examined, 

on  ecclesiastical  legislation,    -         -         -    126,  219,  220  w. 
on  the  Divine  right  of  Church  government,  -         128 

on  the  three  orders  in  the  ministry,         -         -      130,  132 
on  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  England,     -  132,134 

on  cases  of  necessity, 137 

on  lay  baptisms,  -         -         -         -         -         -         140 

—  none  of  these  affect  the  essentials  of  Episcopacy,  -        -     144 

—  not  founded  on  model  of  the  synagogue,    -        -         -     144  n. 

—  Scripture  testimony  for  three  grades,  -        -        -        -    144 

—  Jewish  dispensation, 118, 144 

—  Institution  of  Christ, 145,  146 

—  Churches  founded  by  the  Apostles,  -         -         -       Snd. 

—  Timothy  and  Titus,  Epistles  to,        -         -         -      146,  153 

—  Church  at  Ephesus,        ------      Jlnd. 

—  necessity  of  an  external  commission,  .         -         -      147, 159 

—  received  from  Christ  by  succession,  -         -  148,  150 

—  ordination  belonged  to  the  Apostles  only,     -         -      148,  152 

—  transmitted  to  Bishops  exclusively,  -         _         -         152 

—  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  alleged  by  Presbyterians,  examined,       -     154 

—  angels  of  Seven  Churches  of  Asia,  -         -         -         -         157 
•—        want  of  express  precept  alleged,  .         -         -         -     158 

—  Apostolic  practice,  when  binding,    -         -         -         158, 159 

—  why  unchangeable  in  case  of  Episcopacy,     -         -         -     160 

—  unanimity  of  primitive  Church,        -         .         -         -         162 

—  St.  Ignatius — St.  Cyprian, 163 

—  Calvin's  testimony, 94,  165,  166 

—  not  an  innovation, 168,  198 

—  no  trace  of  any  controversy,     -         -         -         -169,198,205 

—  St.  Jerome  contra,  it  is  said,        -----     169 

—  his  testimony,  value  of  it,         -         .         -  173,  &c. 
(See  St.  Jerome.) 

—  he  puts  Bishops  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles,       -       188-189 

—  universally  prevalent  in  third  century  by  confession  of 

Presbyterians, 200,209 


INDEX.  269 


Episcopacy,  Duty  of  submission  to  it,  -        .        .    211, 218, 220  n. 

—  favourable  to  unity, 218 

—  similarity  of  C  hurch  government  to  that  of  the  civil  polity 

in  the  United  States, 219 

—  Its  beneficial  tendency,  ------         222 

Ephesus,  Church  of, 146, 153 

"  Essays  on  Episcopacy," -  14,  49  w. 

"  Essay  on  the  Visible  Church "  examined,  -         -        -         -       72 

Eusebius,  quoted, 93,  120, 169,  189,  193  n. 

Eutychius — 10th  century — favourite  authority  with  Presbyterians,  182  n. 
Evangelists,  what, 156 

F 

Fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  their  unanimity,    162, 169, 198 

Freedom  of  investigation,  allowable, 34,  43 

Final  perseverance,  doctrine  of, 73,  252 

"  Faith  alone"  the  hinging  point  of  salvation,  -         -         -        63,  74,  75 
Full  records  of  the  early  Church  preserved,  -         -         -         .     207 

H 

Hammond,  Rev.  Dr.,  quoted, 246/1. 

Hoadley,  Bishop,  quoted, 122,  205 

_  —      on  St.  Jerome's  testimony,       -     175,  177,  179,  183-155 

Hooker's  Eccles.  Polity,  quoted,  -  65,  79,  89,  126,  129,  130, 131,  220 

Horsley,  Bishop,  on  Justification  by  Faith,        -         -         -         -      63  n. 

J 

Jerome,  St.,  quoted, 125,  174,  181,  249  w. 

—  his  character, 170,  171 

—  —  "  famous  testimony,"  its  value,    -         -         -      173,  &c. 

opposed  to  his  other  statements,    174,  181,  3,  4,  6,  7,  8 

—  does  not  say  when  alleged  change  took  place,      -         -     174 

may  have  meant  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  176 

—  Bz.ys  it  vfz.s  universal  2irv&  immediate,  -         -         -     179 

—  his  assertion  of  this  change  unwarranted  "by  scripture,      181 

—  —  statements  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,   -         -  182-188 

—  denies  Presbyters  the  power  of  ordination,  -         -     183 

—  calls  superiority  of  Bishops  to  Presbyters  an  Apostolic 

tradition, 185 

—  true  meaning  of  this  passage, 186 

—  puts  Bishops  in  place  of  the  Apostles,    -         -  188,189 

—  uses  not  history,  but  reasonings,  -         -         -  191 

—  says  Timothy,  Titus,  &c.  were  ordained  Bishops,    -         192 

—  weakness  of  relying  on  this  passage,  -         -      193,  194 

Jerusalem,  Church  of, 195 

Ignatius  (St.)  Bishop  of  Antioch, 163, 195 

Imputation  of  Adam's  sin, 252 

Indispensableness  of  Church  communion  to  salvation,    -       52,  59,  60,  62 
Innovation,  charge  of,  repelled,         ...         -   161,  168,  201,  &c. 

Isidore,  Bishop  of  Seville,  quoted, 187 

Invalidity  of  non-Episcopal  ordinations,    -         -         -         -    44,152,242 

—  —  —         baptisms, 142 

Involuntary  and  unavoidable  error, 56,  58 

23* 


270  INDEX. 

Page 

Johnson,  Rev.  Dr.,  life  of,  referred  to, 49 

Jurisdiction  of  Bishops, 124,  219 

Justification  by  faith, 63 

L 

Laity,  their  power  in  ecclesiastical  legislation,  ...      126,  221  n. 

Lay  baptism,  discussed, 140-143 

—  does  not  vitiate  the  ministerial  commission,  -         -         142 

Lathrop,  Dr.,  his  sermon  quoted, 149  w. 

Law's,  Rev.  W.,  1st  letter,  quoted,  on  Apostolical  succession,       150-153 

Le  Moyne,  quoted, 96 

"  Letters  on  Frequent  Communion,"  quoted,  -  -  -  -  39,  61 
Linn,  Dr.,  author  of  the  "  Miscellanies,"  -  -  -  9,  34,  37,  49 n. 
Liturgy,  The,  assailed  and  defended, 225 

M 

Marks  of  the  visible  Church, 77 

Mason,  Dr.  J.,  {see  Christian's  Magazine.) 

M'Leod — principles  of  his  Catechism, 78,  &c. 

—  requires  ordination  by  a  Presbytery,       -         -         -         -       79 

—  unchurches  Presbyterian  Kirk  of  Scotland,  -         -  80 

and  the  whole  visible  Church, 81 

—  inaccurate  definitions, 82 

—  misapplication  of  Scripture,  -         -         -         -         82,  83 

—  maintains  Apostolical  succession,       -         -         -         -         149 

—  —  —         practice,     -         -         .         .  158  n. 

—  disclaims  Congregational  Episcopacy,         "         -        ,-         19'^ 

—  his  account  of  the  Covenanters,     -         -         -         -    '      215  n. 

—  denounces  the  Presbyterians, 217 

—  assails  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  -         -  216  n.  225 

—  remarks  on  forms  of  prayer, 225 

—  representation  of  preaching, 226 

—  —  —  Church  conventions,         -         -         -         228 

—  on  baptismal  regeneration, 229 

Maurice,  Rev.  Dr.,  quoted, 195,  198 

Ministerial  commission  not  vitiated  by  lay  baptism,  ...  142 
Miraculous  gifts  necessary  to  prove  ministerial  commission,  when 

not  received  by  succession, 149 

N 

Nag's  head  ordination  exploded, 133  n. 

JVames  of  three  grades  of  the  clergy  immaterial,        -         -  116,  241 

—      —    —        —     in  Scripture  indeterminate,        -        116, 243-248 

this  no  advantage  to  Presbyterians,        -         -         -         249 

Necessity,  plea  of,  considered, 138 

—  of  an  external  commission,       -         -         -         -  142,148 

—  of  the  new  birth  maintained,        -         -         -         -         -    230 

O 
Ordination,  right  of,  peculiar  to  Bishops,  -        -         -     44,  125,  152, 242 

—  service  quoted, 44,  134 

—  scripture  testimony,  as  to         -         -         -         -  145,  146 

—  of  Presbyterians  invalid,     -         -         -         .          44,  152, 242 

—  —  Timothy  by  St.  Paul  only, 155 


INDEX.  271 


£ 
Preaching,  its  value, 102,  226 

—  provided  for  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  -  227 
Predestination,  ----------    251 

Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  requires  lawful  ordination,  and 
union  with  the  visible  Church,    -        -        -      46,  60,  65,  72,  83, 147 

—  —         —    —     declares  ministry  and  ordinances 
essential, 60,84 

—  —          —    —  sacraments,  by  whom  to  be  admin- 
istered,   -_--.  JSnd. 

—  —          —    —  prayer  and  praise  more  important 
than  preaching, 102,  226 

—  —  —    —  condemns  lay  baptism,       -        -    143 

—  —  —    —  on  Predestination,  -        -        -    252  n. 

—  —  — imputation  of  Adam's  sin,       -    252 

Presbyterian  ordination  invalid, 44, 152, 242 

Presbyterians — their  modern  origin,      ------      89 

—  smallness  of  the  sect,        -----    100  n. 

—  allow  the  Apostolic  succession,    -        -        -        -     149 

—      —  early  establishment  of  Episcopacy,      200,  208 

—  their  system  unfavourable  to  unity,        -        -      213-217 

—  —  discussions  in  Scotland,     -        -        -        -        214 

—  —  —  —  America,  -  -  -  214-217 
"  Presbytery,"  (1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  meaning  of  the  word,  -  154,  &c. 
Primitive  Chm-ch — unanimous  for  Episcopacy,     -        -         -      162,  169 

—  —         reverence  for  Apostolic  usages,   .        -        -        202 
Profession  of  faith  not  always  attended  with  corresponding  fruits,  -    236 

—  —  danger  of  arguing  from  their  want,  -  237-239 
Puritanism — its  erroneous  principle      -----     129,  222 

R 
Regeneration  and  Renovation  distinguished,       -        -        -        -        230 
Reprobation, ----    252 

S 
Salmasius,  quoted, --.    200  n. 

Safety  of  being  in  the  Episcopal  Church,       -        -       100,  115,  211,  213 

Schism,  its  nature  and  guilt, 45,  212 

Scotch  Bishops,  -         .         . 123 

Sermons  of  English  Bishops,  their  excellence,  -        -        -        228 

Sinful  terms  of  communion  prescribed  by  Rome,  -        -       213  n.  234  n. 
Spiritual  communion  with  Christ  explained,    -         -         -         -  66 

—  pride,  its  wickedness, 233 

Spurious  liberality, -13,  14 

Stillingfleet,  Bishop,  his  Irenicum,  its  character,  -         -        -        -      88 

contradicted  by  his  subsequent  writings,    -    88, 136, 178 

—  on  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  -  178, 179, 180, 186 
Succession  in  the  Christian  ministry  necessary,  -  -  .  150 
Superiority  of  Bishops  to  Presbyters  an  Apostolic  tradition,   -        -     185 

T 

Testimonies  in  favour  of  Episcopacy. 

Fathers— Cyprian  (St.)  3d  century,         .        -        -        -         169, 206 


BOOKSEIiLiERS   &   P  U  B  L.  I  S  H  E  R  S, 

No.  139  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK. 

(Late  SWORDS,  STANFORD,  &  CO.,)  the  oldest  Episcopal  Bookstore 
in  the  United  States.    Established  in  1787. 


S.  &  S.  beg  leave  to  inform  their  friends  and  the  public, 
that  they  continue  to  keep  on  hand,  as  in  former  years,  a 
general  assortment  of  Religious  Works,  suitable  for  individ- 
uals, for  Parish  and  Family  Libraries,  and  for  the  Clergy, 
which  they  will  dispose  of  on  the  most  reasonable  terms. 

Bibles  and  Frayer-Books, 

Of  every  size  and  description  of  binding.     Also,  the  Church  Lessons  in 
convenient  forms. 

Among  the  Books  published  by  them  in  aid  of  Christian 
knowledge  and  piety,  are  the  following : 

THE  NEW  MANUAL  OF  DEVOTIONS— Edited  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Bishop  Ives,  of  North  Carolina.     1  vol.  12mo.  Price  $1. 

THE  CHRISTIAN'S  MANUAL  Of  Faith  and  Devotion— Edited  by  the 
late  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Hob  art.     1  vol.  62i  cents. 

THORNTON'S  FAMILY  PRAYERS,  with  a  Commentary  on  our  Lord's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Edited  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Eastbttrx. 
1  vol.  12mo.  Price  75  cents. 

BICKERSTETH'S  TREATISE  On  the  Lord's  Supper.  Enlarged  and 
improved  by  the  author,  and  edited  by  the  Rev.  L.  P.  W.  Balch, 
Rector  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Church,  New  York.     1  vol.  12mo.  75  cts. 

THE  COMPANION  FOR  THE  ALTAR:  Or  Week's  Preparation  for 
the  Holy  Companion.  By  the  late  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hobart.  1  vol. 
Price  50  cents. 

THE  COMMUNICANT'S  MANUAL.  By  the  same.  A  neat  pocket 
volume.     Price  18|  cents.     Morocco  gilt,  37i  cents. 

THE  LIFE  AND  POSTHUMOUS  WORKS  of  the  late  Right  Rev.  Bishop 
Hobart.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  Wm.  Berrian,  D.  D.  3  vols.  8vo. 
$4  50. 

THE  LIFE  AND  SERMONS  of  the  late  Right  Rev.  Nathaniel  Bow- 
en,  D.  D.,  of  South  Carolina,  and  formerly  of  Grace  Church,  New- 
York.    2  vols.  8vo.  $i. 


MELVILL'S  SERMONS,  Edited  by  Bishop  McIlvaine.    3d  edition, 

in  one  large  8vo.  volume.     Price  ^3. 

SERMONS— By  the  late  Right  Rev.  Ben-jamin  Moore,  D.  D.,  Bishop 

of  New- York.     2  vols.  8vo.  Price  $2  50. 

SERMONS — By  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Cunningham,  Vicar  of  Harrow,  author 
of  "  The  Velvet  Cushion,"  «  World  without  Souls,"  &c.  &c.     1  vol. 

8vo.  $1. 

SERMONS— By  the  late  Rev.  C.  R.  Duffie,  first  Rector  of  St.  Thomas's 
Church,  New- York.     2  vols.  Svo.  ^2  50. 

PALMER'S  HISTORY  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Edited  by  the  Right 
Rev.  Bishop  Whittingham,  with  questions  annexed ;  adapting  the 
work  for  Schools  and  Parishes.     In  cloth,  62i  cents;  in  boards,  50  cts. 

THE  LASTS  DAYS  OF  BISHOP  HEBER,  By  the  Rev.  Archdeacon 
Robinson.  A  most  interesting  work  to  all  who  venerate  the  memory 
of  this  departed  prelate.     In  1  vol.  12mo.  50  cents. 

A  TRIBUTE  OF  SYMPATHY.— Addressed  to  Mourners.  By  Newn- 
HAM.     12mo.  50  cents. 

BARROW'S  TREATISE  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy.    Svo.  ^1  50. 

VILLAGE  SERMONS,  On  the  Relative  Duties.  To  which  is  appended 
Sermons  to  Young  Men.     By  the  Rev.  Edward  Berens.     75  cents. 

THE  CHURCHMAN'S  MANUAL.— By  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Dorr, 
D.  D.     75  cents. 

AIDS  TO  REFLECTION.— By  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge.  With 
the  author's  last  corrections.  Edited  by  H.  N.  Coleridge,  Esq., 
M.  A.  To  which  is  prefixed  a  Preliminary  Essay,  by  the  Rev.  J. 
McViCKAR,  D.  D.     75  cents. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  CANONS  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  af  America :  the  whole  being  chronologi- 
cally arranged,  with  Notes  and  Remarks,  Historical  and  Explanatory. 
By  Francis  L.  Hawkes,  D.  D.     $1  25. 

BERRIAN'S  PRAYERS— Family  and  Private  Prayers.  By  the  Rev. 
Wm.  Berrian,  D.  D.     62|  cents. 

PRAYERS  AND  OFFICES  of  Devotion  for  Families,  and  for  Particular 
Persons  upon  most  occasions.  By  Benjamin  Jenks.  Altered  and 
improved  by  the  late  Rev.  Charles  Simeon,  Fellow  of  King's  Col- 
lege, Cambridge.     50  cents. 

JERRAM  AND  WALL'S  Conversations  on  Infant  Baptism.     37|  cents. 

NELSON'S  Practice  of  True  Devotion.     37 1  cents. 

HOLY  LIVING  AND  DYING.— By  the  Right  Rev.  Jeremy  Taylor, 

D.  D.     ^1. 

HOBART'S  apology.— An  Apology  for  Apostolic  Order  and  its  Ad- 
vocates. By  the  late  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hobart.  With  Notes,  and 
a  valuable  Index  to  subjects.     50  cents. 

FESTIVALS  AND  FASTS.— A  Companion  to  the  Festivals  and  Fasts 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
By  the  late  Bishop  Hobart.     62|  cents. 

2 


CHURCH  MUSIC— The  following  valuable  works  of  Church  Music, 
adapted  for  the  Organ  or  Piano: — The  Church  Choir;  The  Harp  of 
David;  The  Music  of  the  Church.     All  $1  each. 

DYER  ON  EPISCOPACY.— Testimonies  for  Episcopacy  from  the  ear- 
lier Christian  Writers.    By  the  Rev.  Pai^mer  Dyer.    25  cents. 

DEMON  ON  CONFIRMATION.— Sermons  on  Confirmation,  and  an 
Address.  By  the  late  Bishop  Dehon,  of  South  Carolina.  10  cents. 
^1  per  dozen. 

BISHOP  IVES'S  CATECHISM— A  Catechism  to  be  taught  orally.  By 
a  Bishop  of  the  Church.     10  cents,  $1  per  dozen. 

KEITH. — Evidence  of  Prophecy.  By  the  Rev.  Alexander  Keith, 
D.  D.  75  cents.  Demonstration  of  the  Truth  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion.   By  the  same.    ^1  50. 

HENRY  MARTYN.— A  Memoir  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Martyn.  By  the 
Rev.  John  Sargent.    In  1  vol.  $1. 

JEREMY  TAYLOR.— The  Life  of  the  Right  Rev.  Jeremy  Taylor,  D.  D. 
By  Bishop  Heber.     1  vol.  75  cents. 

BISHOP  HOPKINS.— Christianity  Vindicated,  in  Seven  Discourses  on 
the  Evidences  of  the  New  Testament.  By  Jorn  Henry  Hopkins, 
D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Vermont.  1  vol.  50  cents.  The  Primitive  Creed 
Examined  and  Explained.  By  the  same.  1  vol.  ^1.  The  Primitive 
Church  Compared  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States.  By  the  same.  ^1.  The  Church  of  Rome  in  her  Primitive 
Purity,  compared  with  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  present  day.  By 
the  same.    $1. 

FABER. — The  Difficulties  of  Romanism.  By  George  Stanley  Fa- 
BER,  B.  D.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  John  Coleman,  D.  D.  ^1.  The  Diffi- 
culties of  Infidelity.  By  the  same.     50  cents. 

BISHOP  McILVAINE. — A  Series  of  Evangelical  Discourses,  selected 
for  the  Use  of  Families  and  Destitute  Congregations.  By  the  Right 
Rev.  Bishop  McIlvaine.  2  vols.  $4  50.  Lectures  on  the  Evidences 
of  Christianity.    By  the  same.    8vo.  $1  25. 

WORKS  ON  EPISCOPACY.— Containing  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bowden's  Let- 
ters to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Miller  ;  and  also  Dr.  Cooke's  Essay  on  the  In- 
validity of  Presbyterian  Ordination  ;  and  Bishop  Onderdonk's  Episco- 
pacy tested  by  Scripture.    2  vols.  ^1  25. 

WILBERFORCE. — The  Life  of  William  Wilberforce,  Esq.  2  vols. 
^.    The  Correspondence  of  the  same.     2  vols.  $2. 

CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE.  By  Caroline  Fry.  75  cents.  A  Word 
to  Women.  By  the  same.  75  cents.  Table  of  the  Lord.  By  the  same. 
75  cents. 

CATECHISM.— Lectures  on  the  Church  Catechism.  By  Archbishop 
Secker.     75  cents, 

SERMONS— By  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Horsley.  Two  volumes  in 
one.  8vo.  ^1  50. 

ROBERT  SOUTHEY.— The  Book  of  the  Church.  By  Robert  Soitth- 
EY,  L  .L.  D.    Abridged  and  adapted  for  the  Young,    62|  cents. 

3 


DATE  DUE 


^ga0i0^'^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  USA. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


11012011865941 


